Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 80 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH

2006-01-09

BHARATI SAPRU

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—The present petition has been filed against an award of the Labour Court dated 2.2.98 passed in adjudication case No 125 of 1991, by which the Labour Court has answered the reference that the termination of the concerned workman numbering four is not bad on the basis of the settlement made dated 20.3.91 but has held that they will be entitled to work after one month from the publication of the award. 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent workmen were working as casual workers with the Railway Department. According to the workmen, they were wrongly terminated with effect from 4.8.84. It is admitted to the workmen that they entered into a settlement dated 20.3.91 with the Railways under which it was settled between the parties that Railways will keep the names of the respondent workmen in a live register for casual workmen and shall offer them work as and when it was available. Settlements have been filed and are on record as annexed in Annexures 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the writ petition. The terms of settlement are quoted as hereunder: - “1. It is agreed that Sri Rameshwar s/o Kishal Lal will be offered work as and when the same is available with AEN/Tundla. 2. It is agreed that the name of Sri Rameshwar will Continue to in the Live Register of Casual Labour and the intervening period will be counted for the purpose of seniority according to the number of days worked. 3. It is agreed that the workman in question will not be entitled for any wages/allowances for the intervening periods. 4. It is agreed that the workman will be offered to work as early as possible as per the seniority register of casual workers maintained by the Railway Administration. In view of the above, the dispute stands fully settled. Both the parties will intimate implementation of the above settlement to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner(C) Lucknow within 30 days of the above settlement.” 3. Despite there being a settlement between the parties, the respondent workmen raised a dispute and sought reference that their termination with effect from 4,8.84 was bad. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. 5. Labour Commissioner(C) Lucknow within 30 days of the above settlement.” 3. Despite there being a settlement between the parties, the respondent workmen raised a dispute and sought reference that their termination with effect from 4,8.84 was bad. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the burden of proof to establish that there was work against which the respondent workmen could have been absorbed in any capacity was on the workmen. He has argued that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated on this account because it does not reflect application of mind by the Labour Court on this aspect of the matter. 6. Paragraph-6 of the award is quoted as hereunder : “I think since 20.3.91 the date of settlement, sufficient time has passed and by now work would have been available. Still no work was offered to them. As such they will be entitled for getting work.” 7. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has substance because the Labour Court has clearly not examined the issue in hand and has simply returned the findings on the basis of a “presumption" that they must have worked. The Labour Court has also not cared to examine the issue that if at all there was a live register of the casual workmen, the seniority under that list should also have been examined. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that settlement dated 20.3.91 was binding in between the parties and the terms of the settlement dated 20.3.91 did not confer any option to the respondent workmen to certain the status of regular employees whereas the order of reference presumes that the workmen were regular employees and that they have been wrongly terminated from 4.8.84 and, therefore, as reinstated the workmen by giving them virtually regular/permanent status, which is also against the terms of the settlement dated 20.3.91. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the settlement dated 20.3.91 being admitted to the respondent workmen, the same was binding upon the respondent workmen and they could have sought any reference against the terms of the said settlement. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Batala Coop. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, 2005(8)S.C.C. 481 and in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsingh, 2005(8) S.C.C.750 wherein it has held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the burden of proof lies on the workman to establish his claim relying on the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002(3) SCC 25 . 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that although he does not deny the settlement dated 20 3.91, he states that the respondent workmen had brought before the Labour Court by way of oral evidence that there was work against which, they could have been engaged as per the settlement. Today also, the learned counsel for the respondent states that fresh vacancies have been advertised by the Railways to absorb casual workman. However, age has been restricted by the circular freshly issued, to be 43 years of age. He states that all the respondent workmen have crossed the age of 43 years and, therefore, the benefits of this circular will not be given to them by the Railway administration. 12. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the firm view that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated on account of the fact that the Labour Court has not read the terms of the settlement properly and has granted to the respondent workmen status of permanent nature, which it could not have done so. The Labour Court has failed to written any finding as to whether there were vacancies at that time or not and has reached its conclusion only on the basis of presumptions. 13. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to answer as to whether fresh vacancies are available or not. But because it is not denied to the Railway that the respondent workmen were casual employees in the year 1991 at the time of the settlement, if there are any vacancies at present, against which they can be absorbed, an opportunity shall be granted to the respondent workmen also without putting any bar on them on account of crossing the age of 48. 14. 14. In the result, the award of the Labour Court dated 2.2.98 is hereby quashed. But the names of the four respondents shall still be kept in the live register of casual workmen and as and when any vacancies arise, they shall be considered by the Railway administration as per the settlement-dated 20.3.1991. 15. The writ petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———