Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Chhatta Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court & Another - WRIT - C No. 11452 of 1984 [2007] RD-AH 386 (8 January 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).


(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11452 of 1984

M/s Chhata Sugar Company Limited Chhata district Mathura Versus Labour Court, Agra and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

List revised. No one appears for the respondent No.3 workman, Brijendra  Singh. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner employer.

This writ petition is directed against award dated 24.4.1984 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court, Agra in Adjudication case No. 180 of 1982. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was to the effect that as to whether the termination of the services of Brijendra Singh with effect from 20.4.1984 by the employer was proper and /or legal. The Labour Court held that the training of the workman was to be completed on 20.5.1981 hence termination on 20.4.1981 was illegal. The case of the employer was that the workman was probationer / trainee. The exact finding of the Labour Court in para 7 is quoted below:

"To sum up, I find that termination of the services of the workman have been made before a completion of training of the workman by the employers was not legal or/and justified. The workman is an Ex-Army man he must be receiving some pension from the Army. He has been found guilty of some lapses in his duty and he even denied his signature on various papers in the Court. I therefore hold that he is entitled to reinstatement on his post but with only on half of the back wages"

Even if services were terminated one or two months before the completion of period of training Labour Court could award only the wages of the said period but not reinstatement. Even otherwise after holding that the employee was guilty of some lapses in his duty and he even denied his signatures on various papers in the court, it was not at all proper to direct reinstatement.

The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that even if termination is illegal for non-compliance of provisions of section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act (or section 25 of I.D. Act) still reinstatement with full back wages is not the proper relief and in such circumstances award of consolidated damages is the proper relief.

1. AIR 2006 SC 2113 Nagar Maha Palika Versus State of U.P.

2. AIR 2006 SC 2427 Haryana SEDC Versus Mamni

The petitioner employer according to its learned counsel are ready to pay reasonable consolidated damages /compensation to respondent No.3.

Accordingly impugned award is modified and instead of reinstatement with half back wages, respondent No.3 workman is held entitled to consolidated damages /compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- . Let the said amount be paid within three months failing which since after three months till the date of actual payment, 1% per month interest on Rs.15000/- would be chargeable.

Writ petition accordingly disposed of.




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


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 |

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