Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE GANGA KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. versus P.O.,LABOUR COURT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. P.O.,Labour Court & Others - WRIT - C No. - 28381 of 1992 [2007] RD-AH 17820 (14 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28381 of 1992

The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

Vs

Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Meerut,U.P. & Others

~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This petition has been preferred against the award dated 19.2.1992 passed by the Labour Court (II), U.P., Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 83/89. The Award has been enforced by publication on the notice board on 30.3.1992. The workman who was working as Time Keeper in the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) claimed that his services were wrongly terminated w.e.f. 15.2.1986 as being a permanent seasonal employee he was entitled to seasonal employment every season. On failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties the following industrial dispute regarding termination/disengagement of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.2.1086 was referred to the aforesaid Labour Court for adjudication. The order of reference is as under: -

^^D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius Jfed fouksn dqekj iq= Jh vkse izdk'k ??Vkbe dhij?? dks fnukad 15-2-86 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd @ oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ o`f) ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed rFkk ykHk @ vuqrks"k ??fjyhc?? ikus dk vf/kdkj gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\**

On receipt of summons the parties filed their respective written statements and rejoinder statements. The Labour Court framed following additional issues as to whether the respondent-workman was appointed as a permanent employee to the establishment of the petitioner-mill or not: -

"lwpuk mijkUr mHk; i{k us vius vius mRrj i= ,oa izfr mRrj izLrqr fd;s ftuds vk/kkj ij fuEu vfrfjDr okn fcUnq cuk;s x;s ftudk fgUnh vuqokn bl izdkj gS%&

1- D;k Jh fouksn dqekj LFkk;h vFkok lhtuy Vkbe dhij dh fu;qDr gqvk Fkk\ ;fn gkWa rks bldk izHkko\

2- D;k fnukad 15-2-86 ls Jh fouksn dh lsok ls NVuh mfpr rFkk fof/kuqlkj gS\ ;fn ugha rks bldk izHkko\

3- D;k vuqrks"k] ;fn dksbZ ftldk Jfed vf/kdkjh gS\"

Documentary and oral evidence was also adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided the reference in favour of the workman holding that his appointment as Time Keeper in the Mills was permanent w.e.f. 1.10.1985 and not seasonal and the termination of his services was wrongful, hence he would be entitled to benefits of permanent employee on the said post.

Aggrieved, the workman has challenged the findings of the Labour Court in the impugned Award by means of this writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman was appointed as seasonal employee when the factory was established in the year 1984 and he was not a permanent employee but the workman has some how manipulated his appointment showing it to be seasonal/permanent appointment. It is stated that the Labour Court wrongly decided the additional issues in favour of the workman holding that the workman was appointed as permanent Time Keeper and not as a seasonal Time Keeper. Accordingly issues nos. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the workman holding that the workman has been appointed as permanent employee, hence termination of his services w.e.f. 15.2.1986 was illegal and unjustified and he was entitled to all consequential benefits of permanent employee on the ground of his being appointed on 1.10.1985 as a permanent Time Keeper and not as a seasonal employee.

The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has produced the original appointment letter which shows that the word ''seasonal' was clearly struck off and the respondent had been granted permanent appointment as Time Keeper. He states that there is therefore no manipulation in the appointment letter and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was appointed as seasonal is against the record and based on no evidence.

Following findings of facts have been recorded by the Labour Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence: -

"esjs er esa og fnukad 1-10-85 ls gh LFkk;h ekU; gksxkA

bl izdkj bl fcUnq dk fu.kZ; bl izdkj fd;k tkrk gS Jh fouksn dqekj dh fu;qfDr LFkk;h le;iky ds in ij gq;h FkhA mldh fu;qfDr lhtuy le;iky ds in ij ugha gq;h FkhA bldk izHkko ;g gksxk fd og fnukad 1-10-85 ls LFkk;h le; iky ds in ij fu;qDr ekus tk;xsaA

vfrfjDr ckn fcUnq la[;k & 2]3 rFkk vks|ksfxd fookn

bl fo"k; esa ??ij fu.kZ; ys pqds gS ^^fd fnukad 15-2-86 ls Jh fouksn dqekj dh lsok lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA Jh fouksn dqekj fnukad 1-10-85 ls LFkk;h le;iky ds in ij iq"V gksxsa rFkk mUgsa blh izdkj LFkk;h in dk osru ,oa vU; ykHk izkIr djk;s tk;sxsaA blh izdkj bl fcUnqvksa dk mRrj fn;k tkrk gSA

vfHkfu.kZ; dh izfr;ka fu;ekuqlkj 'kklu dks izsf"kr gSA

g0@viBuh;

19-2-92

??vkbZ0,u0ddjky]??

ihBklhu vf/kdkjhA**

On the basis of the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court this Court at the time of admission of the writ petition besides staying the operation of the impugned Award dated 19.2.1992 vide its order dated 12.8.1992 vide its order dated 12.8.1992 directed that the petitioner shall appoint the respondent-workman as a permanent seasonal workman and shall pay him all the benefits which are admissible to him under Rules. The order dated 12.8.1992 is quoted as under: -

"Issue notice returnable within four weeks.

Until further orders, operation of the impugned award dated 19.2.92; passed by respondent no. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 83 of 1989 shall remain stayed. However, the petitioner shall engage respondent no. 2 as a permanent seasonal worker and shall pay him all the benefits which are admissible to him under Rules.

Sd/- M.L.Bhat, J.

12.8.92"

The aforesaid interim order dated 12.8.1992 was confirmed vide this Court's order dated 4.3.1997. The effect of all this is that the respondent-workman is working as permanent employee in pursuance of the impugned Award dated 19.2.1992 as well as by the order of this Court quoted above since 1985.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or perversity in the impugned order when confronted with the original appointment letter of the workman, photo copy of which was also on record before the Labour Court and also is on record in the writ petition, hence this Court is not inclined to disturb the factual findings recorded by the Labour Court.

No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner except that the respondent-workman was appointed as seasonal Time Keeper which does not appear to be correct from the original appointment letter produced by the respondent-workman and this fact has been clearly dealt with by the Labour Court.

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated: 14.11.2007

Rpk/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.