High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S U.P. Jal Nigam & Another v. Shobharam & Another - WRIT - C No. 21046 of 1999  RD-AH 6445 (23 March 2006)
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the award dated 10.10.1996 published on 4.2.1999 passed by respondent no.2 in Adjudication Case No.44 of 1995.
The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that respondent no.1 was appointed as Chaukidar on daily wages on 1.2.1987 at Mishripur, Gram Samooh Peya Jal Pariyojana. It has been stated by the petitioners that respondent no.1 stopped coming to his duties and absented himself during the period from 15.3.90 to 31.5.90. Again respondent no.1 reported on duty as daily wager on 1.6.90. As respondent no.1 was a daily wage employee, as such his date of appointment is 1.6.90. On the basis of the departmental order dated 20.5.91, all the work-charge and muster roll employees employed after 31.8.89 were directed to be retrenched in pursuance of the aforesaid directions. The respondent no.1 was retrenched by the order-dated 31.7.91. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No. 23536 of 1991 before this Court and the order-dated 31.7.91 was stayed. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 9.9.94 on the ground that respondent no.1 has a remedy by way of raising a dispute before the industrial court. Thereafter, the respondent raised industrial dispute and the Labour Court vide its award dated 10.10.96 has held that the retrenchment of respondent no.1 vide order dated 31.7.91 is illegal and a direction to this effect has been issued for reinstatement. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the appointment of respondent no.1 was as daily wager and his services have been terminated on the basis of directions issued by the department-dated 20.5.1991. A direction was issued to this effect that daily wager, work charge and muster roll employees employed after 31.8.89 should be retrenched and as respondent no.1 was paid compensation which was duly received by respondent as such there is no violation of the rules while terminating the services of the respondent but the Labour Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and has given an award vide its order dated 10.10.96.
On the other hand counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Labour Court has recorded a finding to this effect that respondent no.1 has worked from 1.2.87 to 31.7.91 continuously. During this period there has been transfer from one place to another. The direction issued by the authority concerned was to the effect that the persons who have not completed 240 days in one calendar year and are working as daily wage employees, their services may be dismissed. The letter-dated 20.5.91 clearly states that the daily wage or muster roll employees who had been appointed after 31.8.89, their services will be retrenched. But and respondent no.1 was appointed prior to that date i.e. on 1.2.1987 on the post of Chaukidar, therefore, the administrative order is not applicable in the case of respondent no.1. The Labour Court has also recorded a finding to this effect that this fact has been admitted by both the parties. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is a finding of fact and no interference is called for.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of the record I find that a finding to this effect has been recorded by the Labour Court that respondent no.1 was appointed on1.2.1987 and was permitted to continue till 31.7.1991. The direction issued by the higher authority dated 20.5.1991 was clear to this effect that the daily wagers appointed subsequent to 31.8.89, their services may be retrenched. The direction issued by the higher authority dated 20.5.1991 is not applicable to the respondent as the respondent was working prior to 31.8.89. Now it is well settled that a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interfered unless and until it is proved that it is perverse or against the evidence on record. There is no illegality in the award-dated 10.10.1996.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
W.P. 21046 of 1999
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.