Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 102 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SRI NARAYAN

2014-03-21

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. State of U.P. is challenging award dated 25.06.2012, passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar. A reference was made by the State Government whether the termination of the workman by the employer was justified or/and legal. If not, the workman is entitled to get what reliefs/benefits. 2. In brief, the case of the workman, inter alia, is that the workman is unskilled labour. He was engaged by the employer as beldar from 20.10.1993 as daily wager and he was allowed to work as Beldar from 20.10.1993 to 04.09.2002, however, all of a sudden, on 05.09.2002, he was orally told not to come on work. Further stated that workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, employer did not follow provision of Section 6-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, therefore, termination of his services is bad in law. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Labour Court, petitioners /employer herein filed written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that some contracts were awarded to different contractors and workman had worked as worker of one of the contractor and was never engaged by the department. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against the department. 4. Learned Labour Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15th September, 2011, was pleased to hold that workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, his services could have been terminated after following provisions of Section 6-N of the Act read with Rule 42 of the Rules. Since Section 6-N and Rule 42 were violated, therefore, termination was bad in law and ultimately learned Labour Court allowed the reference with the direction to the employer/petitioners herein to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits, however, workman would not be entitled for the backwages from the date he was not allowed to work. Feeling aggrieved, State of U.P./employer has filed present writ petition. 5. I have heard Mrs. Bina Pandey, learned Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) of the employer/petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the workman/respondent and have carefully perused the record. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State of U.P. has raised two points. Feeling aggrieved, State of U.P./employer has filed present writ petition. 5. I have heard Mrs. Bina Pandey, learned Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) of the employer/petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the workman/respondent and have carefully perused the record. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State of U.P. has raised two points. First, irrigation department is under the control and management of the State of U.P., therefore, reference could only be made by State of U.P. and reference made by the State of Uttarakhand was without jurisdiction, therefore, should have been returned by the Labour Court. Second, workman was never employed by the Irrigation Department, State of U.P. rather he was allowed to work as a worker of one of the contractor, therefore, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent. 7. It is not a case of the petitioners/State of U.P. that workman has not worked at all on the site. The only case of the petitioners is that workman was allowed to work as worker of one of the contractor. I have carefully perused the written statement furnished by the State/employer. In so many vogue and ambiguous terms, State of U.P. has pleaded that some contracts were given to some contractors and workman has worked as worker of one of the contractor, however, neither name of the contractor was given nor period and nature of contract was mentioned. There should be specific pleadings. For want of complete details, it would not be possible for this Court to accept the plea of the petitioner that workman was allowed to work as Worker of one of the contractor. 8. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the Labour Court that workman has worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year with the department, therefore, his services could have been terminated only by following procedure as provided under Section 6-N of the Act and Rule 42 of the Rules. 9. Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, reads as under :- “[4-K. Reference of disputes to Labour Court or Tribunal. 9. Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, reads as under :- “[4-K. Reference of disputes to Labour Court or Tribunal. – Where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial disputes exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule, or to a Tribunal if the matter of dispute is one contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for adjudication. Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the State Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court.]” 10. I have carefully perused Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules. A careful reading of Section 4-K would go to demonstrate that in the event of any dispute or apprehension of the dispute between the employer and workman, a reference shall be made by the State Government. It nowhere provides that Industry, in question, should be under the control and management of the State. For illustration, if dispute is between the private industry and its workman and the moment State Government acquires knowledge about such dispute, State Government is competent to make reference for the redressal of dispute because dispute arises within the territory of the State Government. In my humble opinion, Irrigation Department may be under the control and management of the U.P. State Government. But the fact remains that site is within the territory of State of Uttarakhand, therefore, for any dispute arising within the territory of Uttarakhand, State Government of Uttarakhand is competent to make reference under Section 4-K. 11. Consequently, I do not find any fault with the reference made by the State Government. No other point is raised. 8. In view of the findings recorded hereinbefore, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.