Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE U.P.S.E.B. versus THE P.O.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The U.P.S.E.B. v. The P.O. - WRIT - C No. 19081 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 5057 (21 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

Court No.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19081 of 1986

The U.P. State Electricity Board and another Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ghaziabad, and another.

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

In spite of service, no one appears on behalf of the workman Sri Har Saran Singh, Respondent No.2.

This writ petition is directed against the award dated 07.05.1986 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Ghaziabad, in adjudication case No.1 of 1982. The matter, which was referred to the Labour Court, was as to whether the action of petitioner-employer terminating the services of its employee Har Saran Singh, Respondent No.2 w.e.f. 30.07.1979 was valid or not.

The workman pleaded before the Labour Court that he had worked from 01.04.1978 till 30.07.1979, hence, he had completed 240 days. The employers pleaded that the workman was employed on daily wage/muster roll and firstly, there was no work left and secondly, workman himself stopped coming to work. The Labour Court found that workman had completed 240 days and even if there was no work left for him, retrenchment compensation should have been given before terminating his services as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The re-instatement with back wages with effect from the date of enforcement of award, was directed by the Labour Court.

The Labour Court accepted the case of the employer that Respondent No.2 was daily wager and muster roll employee. In such situation, even if the provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with, re-instatement is not the proper relief. In such situation, the proper relief is to award consolidated damages/compensation as held by the Supreme Court in Nagar Mahapalika Vs. State, AIR 2006 SC 2113 and Hariyana S.E.D.C. Vs. .Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427.

Accordingly, impugned award is modified and it is directed  that instead of re-instatement with back wages from the date of enforcement of the award, Respondent No.2 is entitled to consolidate damages/compensation of Rs.20,000/-. This amount shall be paid within three months failing which 1% per month interest shall be payable since after three months till actual payment. It may be mentioned that through interim order dated 05.11.1986 passed in this writ petition. It was directed that until further orders effect shall not be given to the impugned award.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 21.03.2007

NLY/19081/86


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.