High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Union Of India v. Dhanna Singh & Others - WRIT - C No. 22807 of 1997  RD-AH 5287 (23 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22807 of 1997
Union of India vs. Dhanna Singh and others
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 9.9.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No.242 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the tribunal was as to whether the action of employer Divisional Regional Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad - petitioner in terminating the services of its employee Dhanna Singh - respondent no.1 was proper or not. The case of the employer was that the workman was working as casual labour. The workman claimed that he was working since 1976. This claim was clearly dis-believed by the labour court. The tribunal recorded a finding that the workman was working as casual worker when he fell ill on 12.8.1986 and got treatment upto 4.10.1986. Labour court further held that after 4.10.1986 when he became fit he went to join his duty alongwith medical certificate but he was not allowed to join and his services were terminated. Ultimately reinstatement with full back wages was directed. First of all Labour court did not record a finding that the workman had completed 240 days . Even if it is assumed that workman had completed 240 days and his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act still direction for reinstatement was not proper unless it was found that the workman was appointed on permanent basis. In such situation the more appropriate course was to award reasonable consolidated damages/compensation.
The employer-petitioner also did not bring on record the total period for which workman had worked.
Accordingly, in view of the Supreme Court judgments reported in U.P. State Brassware Corpn. vs. U.N.Pandey 2005 A.I.R. S.C.W. 6314 Nagar Mahapalika vs. State of U.P. And others A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 2113 and Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corp. vs. Mamni A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 2427 impugned award is modified and it is directed that instead of reinstatement with back wages respondent-workman is entitled to consolidated damages/compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The said amount shall be paid within three months failing which 1% per month interest shall be payable since after three months till actual payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal 2001 (88) F.L.R. 741 to contend that reinstatement shall be awarded if provisions of Section 6-N have been violated. In the instant case no such finding has been recorded that workman has completed 240 days. Moreover in the said case the appointment was on adhoc basis and in the instant case appointment was on work charge basis. Prior to the decision of Constitution Bench authority of Supreme Court reported in Secretary vs. Uma Devi A.I.R. 2006 S.C. ad hoc, work charge, temporary or even daily wage employees had a right to regularisation and continuance in service. However, after the said authority, no such right is available.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.