Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 262 (ALL)

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam v. Ashok Kumar

2023-01-25

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Sri Y.S. Sachan, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, the counsel for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition Nos. 16633 of 2012 has been filed challenging the award dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court (V), Uttar Pradesh Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos. 19 of 2005 and 20 of 2005 while Writ Petition No. 16638 of 2012 has been filed challenging the award dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court (V), Uttar Pradesh Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 18 of 2005. Writ Petition Nos. 38745 of 2012, 38746 of 2012 and 40035 of 2012 have been filed challenging the consequential recovery certificates issued for recovery of the award challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 16633 of 2012 and 16638 of 2012. 3. As the issues raised in all the petitions are same, therefore, the petitions have been heard together. 4. Adjudication Case Nos. 18 of 2005, 19 of 2005 and 20 of 2005 arose from a reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1947') and were regarding retrenchment of the workmen. The cases set-up by the workmen were that they were working as Safai Observer with the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar but were subsequently terminated by orders dated 28th August, 2000 without any notice and without being given any retrenchment compensation. The plea was raised by the workmen in their written statement and necessary documents in support of their case was filed by the workmen. The workmen had also filed affidavits and appeared as witness to prove their case. However, the employer - petitioner did not appear in the case before the Labour Court and did not file any document controverting the plea raised by the workmen nor availed the opportunity to cross-examine the workmen. In the circumstances, relying on the testimony and the pleadings of the workmen, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the services of the workmen - respondents had been illegally terminated and the workmen were entitled to be re-instated in service in the same position as they were on 28th August, 2000. It has been specifically recorded by the Labour Court that the workmen were retrenched / terminated without any notice and without any compensation having been given to them in lieu of the notice. 5. It has been specifically recorded by the Labour Court that the workmen were retrenched / terminated without any notice and without any compensation having been given to them in lieu of the notice. 5. The findings have been recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record. It is apparent that the evidence filed by the workmen and their plea were not controverted by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, the employer in the present case. In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the awards dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case Nos. 18 of 2005, 19 of 2005 and 20 of 2005 so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition Nos. 16633 of 2012 and 16638 of 2012 lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 6. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the recovery certificates issued and challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 38745 of 2012, 38746 of 2012 and 40035 of 2012 are without jurisdiction in as much as the application was filed under Section 6-H(1) of the Act, 1947 but the powers have been exercised under Section 6-H(2) of the Act, 1947. Writ Petition Nos. 38745 of 2012, 38746 of 2012 and 40035 of 2012 are against the consequential recoveries filed for execution of the awards passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 18 of 2005, 19 of 2005 and 20 of 2005. 7. Under Section 6-H(2) of the Act, 1947, the Labour Court which computes in terms of money the benefit which a workman is entitled and the computed amount is recovered in the same manner as provided under Section 6-H(1) of the Act, 1947. There appears to be no dispute regarding the wages / salary claimed by the workmen. 8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no jurisdictional error as such in the recovery certificates issued by the Labour Court. 9. The writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed.