High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mohd. Ishaq v. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Others - WRIT - C No. 3406 of 1988  RD-AH 2253 (30 January 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3406 OF 1988
Mohd. Ishaw S/o Alla Dia ........................Petitioner
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur
and another. .....................Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This is a workman's petition against an award of the Tribunal dated 11.12.87 by which the Tribunal has held that the action of the Management in terminating the service of the workman concerned from 30.5.84 was not justified but in relief he was granted a compensation of Rs.5000/-.
Aggrieved by this award, the workman concerned has filed the present petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Kumar Anish and learned counsel for the respondent Shri Manish Goyal. I have also perused the record and read the award.
The facts and circumstances, which spill out from the record are that the petitioner workman was engaged on a contract basis for a sum of Rs.15/- per month to take care of the cycle stand. It is admitted to the workmen that the amount which was given to him at the so-called appointment dated 16.6.64 was a sum of Rs.15/-. The work done by the petitioner workman was to take care of the cycle stand
outside the premises of the Corporation building and other than this; he had a cycle repair shop and was also engaged in the sale of cycle spare parts. The findings on record are that he charged money from the visitors who came to the respondent Corporation and from the employees of the respondent Corporation who used his cycle stand.
It is also apparent from the record that for 20 years, he carried on his cycle stand business at the fixed rate of Rs.15/- per month.
This in itself is a statement which lends support to the evidence and pleadings given by the management witness that other than Rs.15/- given to the petitioner Corporation, he had other sources of income because even in the year 1964 the petitioner could not have supported himself and his family on a meager sum of Rs.15/-. It is obvious that he carried-on with the cycle stand business because he had other sources of income. Had he been a regular employee of the Corporation and then he would not have had simultaneously other sources of income.
The conclusion of the Tribunal was that the petitioner was a part time worker of the Corporation was also not correct. Even though the Corporation has not challenged his award on the findings that the petitioner was a part time worker but there is an objection to this fact, which is contained in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal having recorded the petitioner as a part time worker should have reinstated him with full benefits. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view of the other facts and circumstances, which are culled-out from the record that the petitioner workman could not have been a part time worker to the Corporation and yet have had business and other sources of income simultaneously. The Corporation in its usual course of business cannot engage such part time workers. Is the Corporation, which ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and such nature of employment as claimed by the petitioner could not have been given by the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Manish Goyal also appeared and has submitted to the Court that a lump- sum amount of Rs.5,000/- has already been paid to the workman. The award itself records that it could not be proper to reinstate the workmen but to give him lump sum compensation.
In view of the above discussions, I hold that the relief as granted to the petitioner under the award was more than sufficient and adequate. No more relief could have been given to him.
The award of the Tribunal thus does not require any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
But there will be no order as to costs.
Dated : 30/1/06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.