Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JABEDUL ISLAM versus P.O., LABOUR COURT, KANPUR NAGAR & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jabedul Islam v. P.O., Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & Another - WRIT - C No. 39027 of 1996 [2007] RD-AH 4652 (16 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

(Judgment reserved on 5.1.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 16.3.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39027 of 1996

Jabedul Islam vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

This writ petition is directed against award dated 6.2.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), Kanpur in adjudication case no.99 of 1989.  Respondent no.2 M/s Abdul Majeed and Sons Meston Road, Kanpur runs a shop in which petitioner was an employee.  The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether termination of services of petitioner employee by respondent no.2-employer with effect from 12.10.1987 was valid or not and if not then to what relief the employee was entitled.  Through the impugned award labour court held that services were not terminated on 12.10.1987 but the employee himself left the job.   The labour court ultimately held that the employee was not entitled to reinstatement however, he was entitled to six months' salary amounting to Rs.6,000/- as compensation/damages.  The said relief ws accordingly granted.

Earlier the same adjudication case had been decided by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 9.1.1995.  Copy of the said award is Annexure-6 to the writ petition.  Through the said award reinstatement with full back wages was directed.  The said award was published on 2.3.1995.  Thereafter on 15.5.1995 employer-respondent no.2 filed restoration application which was allowed on 31.5.1995 and earlier award dated 9.1.1995 was set aside.  Thereafter, impugned award dated 6.2.1996 was passed.

Annexure-7 to the writ petition is an application given by the petitioner to Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour Department on 1.9.1995.  In the said application it is mentioned that before giving the first award dated 9.1.1995, Labour Court had passed an order on 30.11.1994 directing the case to proceed ex-parte as employer had not appeared.  In the same application it is also mentioned that the earlier award dated 9.1.1995 was published on 2.3.1995 and in the same application it is mentioned that restoration application by the employer was filed on 15.5.1995 and it was also stated in the said application that restoration application was filed beyond time.  Through the said application dated 1.9.1995 it was prayed that the case might be transferred to some other Presiding Officer.  Even in the impugned award dated 6.2.1996 it is mentioned that earlier the matter was decided on 9.1.1995 ex-parte against the employer but on the application of the employer the said order was set aside.

During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that restoration application was beyond time as it could be  filed only within one month from the date of publication i.e. till 2.4.1995 and thereafter Labour Court became functuous officio.  Even though the argument  is correct but it cannot be entertained for the reason that the order allowing the restoration application dated 15.5.1995 has not been challenged.  Even in the grounds of writ petition no objection has been taken against the order allowing the restoration application.  Even the copy of the said order has not been annexed.

Even though nothing was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of merit of the impugned award however, I have perused the entire award and I do not find any such error in the said award which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.  Labour court has observed that the petitioner even applied for allotment of the shop in his own name in which he was working.  A categorical finding has been recorded by the labour court that due to malafide intentions petitioner absented himself from duty and abandoned the job.

In any case the relief of payment of the amount equivalent to six months wages awarded by the labour court is quite appropriate.  Under facts and circumstances of the case reinstatement was not at all warranted.

Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

16.3.2007

RS/-


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.