Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 35 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. UMESH CHANDRA

2002-01-08

ANJANI KUMAR

body2002
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 21. 7. 1995, passed in adjudication case No. 33 of 1992, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that State Government vide its order dated 13. 3. 1992 has referred the following dispute under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947 for adjudication before the respondent-Labour Court, which reads as follows :- "whether the termination of the services of Sri Umesh Chandra (workman) w. e. f. , 1. 3. 1988 by the employer was valid and legal ? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman was entitled for, etc. " ( 3 ) IT is submitted that the employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their written statements and adduced their evidence and argued the matter before the Labour Court. The workmans case is that he was appointed in the organisation of the petitioner-employer on daily wage basis on 1. 9. 1986 and since then he is regularly working till his services were terminated i. e. , with effect from 1. 3. 1988 by oral order and that too before terminating the services of the workman concerned, the provisions of Sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947 have not been complied with. The junior employees, who were appointed after the workman, have been retained, whereas the services of the workman were terminated, it was, therefore, prayed that the termination of the services of workman may be declared void and a direction be issued to the employer to treat the workman in. continuous service as regular employer. ( 4 ) THE employer have denied the case of the workman and stated that the workman was appointed as a daily wager and worked between the period 1. 9. 1986 to 31. 8. 1987. The further contention of the employer was that whenever his services were required, he used to be taken in job but the workman has not been able to complete 240 days in any calendar year and he does not have any claim with regard to the regularisation in the employment. 9. 1986 to 31. 8. 1987. The further contention of the employer was that whenever his services were required, he used to be taken in job but the workman has not been able to complete 240 days in any calendar year and he does not have any claim with regard to the regularisation in the employment. Apart from above, the dispute is time barred and therefore, it was requested on behalf of the employer that the reference may be answered against the workman. Both the employer and the employee have exchanged their rejoinder affidavits and also adduced their oral evidences. It is stated by the workman that he was appointed on 1. 9. 1986 and since then he is continuously working till his services were terminated by an oral order dated 1. 3. 1988, thus he has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. It is further alleged that before terminating the services of the workman, neither any charge-sheet was served on him, nor any notice was given and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman concerned. In order to establish that workman has worked with the employer for more than 240 days, he had filed an application 8/d requesting the Labour Court to summon the muster role, which may demonstrate that the workman has worked for more than 240 days. The Labour Court has directed the employer to produce those documents but the employer, neither filed any objection against the said application 8/d, nor produced any documents, which were mentioned in the said application, therefore, vide order dated 19. 7. 1993 the Labour Court directed the workman concerned to adduce further oral evidence, but no further evidence was adduced by the workman. The workman has examined Umesh Chandra on 1. 8. 1994 as W. W. 1, who has stated on oath in his statement that the workman concerned has worked under the Irrigation Department w. e. f. , 1. 9. 1986 to 1. 3. 1988 as Beldar; He has further stated that before terminating his services, neither any notice was served on him, nor any enquiry was conducted against the workman concerned. He goes to State that before terminating his services, no retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, nor was offered for the same. 9. 1986 to 1. 3. 1988 as Beldar; He has further stated that before terminating his services, neither any notice was served on him, nor any enquiry was conducted against the workman concerned. He goes to State that before terminating his services, no retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, nor was offered for the same. He also stated that junior employees than the workman concerned, namely, Om Prakash and Dilsher Bahadur are still working in the organisation of the employer, but the services of the workman concerned have been terminated, as stated above. The workman has emphatically denied that he has voluntarily left the job. It has been stated in the cross-examination of the employers witness that services of the workman have not been terminated by the employer, but he himself has left the job and since the workman has left the job on his own, therefore, no notice in this regard was issued to him, which goes to say that the workman should either join the job, or it should be presumed that he has left the job on his own. The employers witness has also admitted that there is no record available with regard to the working of the workman concerned w. e. f. , 1. 9. 1986 to the end of February, 1988. However, it is admitted in the cross-examination that the workman has worked between these periods, but not continuously and he has worked as daily wager. The Labour Court on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months before his services were terminated w. e. f. , 1. 3. 1988. It has also been found proved that before terminating the services of the workman, neither any notice nor charge-sheet has been issued, nor any enquiry has been conducted by the employer. It is also admitted that no retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 6-N of the Act, has been given to the workman concerned. On the basis of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court, the Labour Court has awarded that the workman is entitled for re-instatement on the post of Beldar with continuity of service. It is also admitted that no retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 6-N of the Act, has been given to the workman concerned. On the basis of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court, the Labour Court has awarded that the workman is entitled for re-instatement on the post of Beldar with continuity of service. However, the Labour Court has refused to grant the wages from the date of termination till the date of award and in lieu of back wages the Labour Court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and it is this part of the award, which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. ( 5 ) AS stated above, the Labour Court has recorded findings with regard to all the aforesaid three points which have not been challenged by the employer, nor the employer could demonstrate that the same are perverse. In this view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court does not require any interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this court. The writ petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The interim orfler, if any, stands vacated. .