High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jagran Prakashan Pvt. v. Ratan Sinha - WRIT - C No. 967 of 1980  RD-AH 4040 (9 March 2007)
(Court No. 28)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 967 of 1980
M/s Jagaran Prakashan Private Limited, Kanpur Versus Desh Ratan Sinha and three others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
List revised. Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner employer. No one is present for the workman respondent No.1.
This writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 17.11.1979 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV) U.P. Lucknow in Adjudication case No. 74 of 1978. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of employer in terminating the services of its employee Desh Ratan Sinha respondent No. 1 with effect from 4.7.1975 was proper and valid or not.
The case of respondent No. 1 was that he was appointed on 1.9.1974 on probation regarding which letter of appointment was also issued on 20.8.1974 and his services were orally terminated on the night of 3/ 4 July 1975. It was further stated that respondent No.1 was appointed on probation for six months however it was not stated that any order confirming respondent No.1 was ever passed by the petitioner employer.
Labour court through impugned award directed reinstatement with full back wages holding that termination order was illegal as provisions of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with and no compensation was given to the respondent No.1.
As respondent No.1 had not been confirmed hence he had no right to continue on the said post. There is no question of automatic confirmation. Even if it is assumed that termination order was bad for the reason that retrenchment compensation etc. as required by section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act was not given still reinstatement with full back wages was not the proper relief. In such situation only consolidated damages/ compensation should have been awarded as held by the Supreme Court in Nagar Maha Palika Versus State of U.P AIR 2006 SC 2113 and Haryana SEDC Versus Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427.
Moreover in para 44 of the award, the Labour Court found that the respondent No.1 was enrolled as an advocate with U.P. Bar Council and he had filed application for enrolment on 22.7.1975 i.e just after 18 days of termination of his service. This was additional ground for not directing reinstatement.
On 19.9.2006, it was stated by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 was practising as an advocate and he was no more interested in reinstatement of his service. The said statement was noted on the order sheet. Thereafter on 7.11.2006, offer of Rs. 50000/- was made by the petitioner employer to the workman respondent No.1 in full and final satisfaction of his claim and to that effect statement of learned counsel for the petitioner employer was noted on the order sheet . Thereafter on 22.1.2007 it was also noted on the order sheet that respondent No.1 had refused to accept the said offer.
In my opinion under the facts and circumstances of the case even offered amount of Rs.50000/- is more than appropriate. However as petitioners have offered Rs.50000/- hence impugned award is modified and it is directed that instead of reinstatement with full back wages respondent No.1 is entitled to consolidated damages / compensation of Rs.50000/- from the petitioner employer. Let the aforesaid amount be paid to the respondent No.1 through draft within three months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority of Supreme Court reported in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital Vs. Vinod Kumar 2006 (1) SCC 498 wherein it is held that if the retrenched workman has been enrolled as an advocate then there is no question of reinstatement and payment of back wages.
Writ petition is therefore disposed of accordingly. Impugned award is modified as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.