High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.E.B., Kanpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Iv, Kanpur & Another - WRIT - C No. 11078 of 1997  RD-AH 6103 (20 March 2006)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11078 of 1997
U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Presiding Officer and another
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17731 of 1997
Laxmi Kant Gupta vs. Presiding Officer and another
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent workman has stated that it will be in the interest of justice that the writ petition no. 11078 of 1997 and writ petition no. 17731 of 1997 which had been filed by the respondent workman challenging the impugned award with regard to denial of full back wages from the date of termination, are decided together.
I have summoned the record of writ petition no. 17731 of 1997 and perused the same.
Both the writ petitions no. 11078 of 1997 and 17731 of 1997 arising out of the same award dated 14.11.1996 passed in adjudication case no. 149 of 1996 are being decided by a common judgment by taking the writ petition no. 11078 of 1997 as leading writ petition.
Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Singh and Sri S.N. Dubey learned counsel for the respondent workman.
It is apparent from the record that though the workman concerned had worked for more than 240, he was able to establish this fact before the Labour Court that his services were wrongly terminated without complying the provisions of section 6-N of the U.P.I.D. Act and therefore the Labour court has rightly reinstated him.
Sri Ranjit Saxena has argued that in fact the workman did not deserve any relief because he raised an industrial dispute after a period of ten years. It was highly belated but in so far as this aspect is concerned, the Labour Court while granting relief to the workman has refused to grant him any back wages for this period of ten years.
In my opinion, the Labour Court has awarded relief to the workman, which is just, fair and proper and has rightly refused to grant any back wages for ten years on the ground that the workman did not approach the Labour Court within time. As such the impugned award of the Labour court requires no interference by this Court as it does not contain any illegality or error of law.
For the reasons mentioned above, both the writ petitions are dismissed but there will be no costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.