Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 163 (ALL)

RAM NARAIN v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

2018-01-18

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The petitioner who had worked with the respondents as a Beldar/Mali with effect from 1.5.1989 till 31.3.1993 was by an oral order asked not to come to work and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. The State referred the matter on 13.5.2002 with a specific reference as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1993 was legal and as to what damages etc. were payable to the petitioner, if it was found his termination was not valid. After the matter was taken up by the prescribed authority of Labour Court, Varanasi, it was found that the petitioner was a daily wager and that he could not be reinstated in service. However, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to him after finding that the petitioner’s termination was not valid. As the petitioner was not reinstated, he has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the work which the petitioner was doing was still subsisting then there was no reason for not reinstating him, specially when it was found that his services were wrongly terminated. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner was a temporary employee and was in the muster roll. He further submitted that the industrial dispute which was initiated by the petitioner was very belatedly initiated and that others had been employed in place of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service and no compensation should also be given to him. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as the industrial dispute was raised almost after four years. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746 , reference of the State should not have been entertained by the Labour Court belatedly. However, since the State has not assailed the award, I am not inclined to delve further into the question of delay. In the instant case, the only question which requires to be addressed is as to whether the relief of reinstatement with full back wages was to be given to the petitioner. However, since the State has not assailed the award, I am not inclined to delve further into the question of delay. In the instant case, the only question which requires to be addressed is as to whether the relief of reinstatement with full back wages was to be given to the petitioner. In B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , it has been held that relief of reinstatement with full back wages should not be granted mechanically. Undeniably, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation and the Court should be inclined in favour of the workman, but the Court cannot also be blind to the fact that the petitioner was a temporary employee and had raised the industrial disputes belatedly. Since the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days and there was a violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I am not inclined to interfere in the findings as had been arrived at by the Labour Court. 5. However, I feel that the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- which has been awarded to the petitioner is on the lower side and that it should be increased to Rs. 1,10,000/-. The respondent is an industry which is flourishing. It gets funded by the State of Uttar Pradesh and there is no dearth of fund. The petitioner should not have been asked to quit. However, as the petitioner approached very belatedly, in the ends of justice, the petitioner should be awarded Rs. 1,10,000/- instead of Rs. 40,000/- which was awarded by the Labour Court. This amount shall be payable to the petitioner within a period of three months i.e. by 18.4.2018. If the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- is not paid within the time prescribed then the petitioner would be entitled interest at the rate of 8 per cent with effect from 18.1.2018. The writ petition is partly allowed.