High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ghatanpur Sugar Co. v. Presdiding Officer Labour Court (2) - WRIT - C No. 6664 of 1994  RD-AH 2930 (8 February 2006)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.6664 of 1994
Ghatampur Sugar company Ltd.,
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II) and ors.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This writ petition has been filed against an award of the Labour Court dated 18.8.1993 in adjudication case no. 58 of 1989 by which the respondent workman was reinstated with full back wages.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a sugar factory. The nature of engagement of workman, in a sugar factory under the standing orders as applicable to the sugar factory, can be of a permanent, seasonal or temporary nature under the certified standing orders issued for the vacuum pan sugar factory under section 3-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
The facts of the case as they appear from the record of the case are that the respondent workman was engaged by the petitioner for a period of two months by way of a letter dated 10.1.1987 as diesel generator operator. His services automatically came to an end on the expiration of the period of two months.
However the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute that he was wrongly terminated with effect from 5.4.1987 and in violation of the provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, without giving him notice, even though he has completed 240 days.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.D. Khare and Ms. Ekta Singh Rathore appearing on behalf of the respondent workman.
In para 7 and 8 of the written statement filed by the petitioner sugar factory, the below-noted averments were made:
"7. That Sri Pratap Narain Singh was temporarily engaged for operation of diesel generator set in semi-skilled grade for two months w.e.f 12.1.87 on application of Sri Pratap Narain Singh dated 10.1.87.
8. That the engagement of Sri Pratap Singh automatically ended after 11.3.87 as per terms and conditions of engagement."
The reply of the said para is contained in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent workman in para 1, 2 and3 of the rejoinder statement. The respondent workman has made no specific denial with regard to the letter dated 10.1.1987.
Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent workman, there is no denial of the fact that the respondent workman was appointed by way of a letter dated 10.1.1987 for a period of two months. The award of the Labour Court also records a clear finding - "YA BAAT SAHI HAI KI USKI SEVAI KEWAL DO MAH KE LIYA THI JAISA KI SEVAYOJAK NE KAHA HAI."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not violated any provision of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act because the workman concerned was engaged for a period of two months and his engagement came to an end automatically on the expiration of the said period. Such expiration, he has argued, could not be termed as either discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination as envisaged under section 2(A) of the Act and it is for this reason he has argued that reference itself was bad.
The second argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workman concerned accepted the terms of the appointment dated 10.1.1987. This argument is well supported by the facts, because the respondent workman has no where disputed the letter dated 10.1.1987.
The third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reference was also bad as no cause of action arose on 5.4.1987 as stated in the reference itself, because according to the petitioner the work of the respondent workman had come to an end on 11.3.1987. In reply, Ms. Ekta Singh Rathore has also argued that the facts were otherwise and the workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days from 1986 onwards. However while making argument, she did not deny the existence of letter dated 10.1.1987 as the record itself speaks that the letter was there, stating the terms of the appointment, which at no stage was denied by the respondent workman.
In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and are liable to be accepted. The Labour Court has also returned the finding, that it is correct that there was a letter of appointment dated 10.1.1987. The Labour Court has given no cogent reason for its disbelieving the letter dated 10.1.1987 nor it has given any cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days. The award of the Labour Court is contradictory in this regard. However the letter dated 10.1.1987 has not been specifically denied by the respondent workman. That alone is the correct finding.
I therefore come to the conclusion that the award of the Labour Court in so far as it has come to the conclusion that the workman worked for more than 240 days is concerned, is bad and vitiated in view of his own finding that the respondent workman had been appointed for a period of two months.
The award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.