High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Parasmani Pal v. Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 25957 of 1995  RD-AH 6720 (12 April 2007)
Court no. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25957 of 1995
Parasmani Pal versus Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P.
Allahabad and others.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
List has been revised.
None has appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner is present. Heard him and perused the record.
The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad alleging that his services have been terminated w.e.f. 1.11.90 by the employer, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 222 of 1992. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad vide order dated 30th April, 1993 for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P. at Allahabad which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1993.
The case of the workman before the Tribunal was that he was employed against permanent post of Gardner (Mali) in the establishment of the employer on 8.10.1985. He had worked more than 240 days but his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.11.1990 illegally and unjustly contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further case of the workman was that he was not paid wages for the month of October, 1990 despite the fact that his signatures were obtained on the Pay voucher.
The case of the workman was contested by the employer by filing rejoinder affidavit interalia, that the employer had neither retrenched nor dismissed the workman from service, hence the compliance of the provisions of retrenchment in the present case did not arise at all.
The case of the employer was that the workman had resigned from service of his own accord w.e.f. 1.11.90 due to physical infirmity. His resignation was accepted on 29.10.90 and intimation to this effect was also communicated to the workman concerned and he was paid all dues along with the wages for the month of October, 1990. It was also the case of the employer that after clearing his dues the workman had raised an industrial dispute by filing an application on false grounds after lapse of about 2 years with an ulterior motive and with a view to achieve some illegal gains.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of the application 6A moved on behalf of the employer the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue which is as under:-
" Whether the order of reference is bad in law?
If so, to what effect?"
None of the parties adduced any oral evidence in support of the above issue.
The Tribunal examined the contentions of the parties and relying upon the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1989, FLR-Vol.59 SC-734 held that the reference was bad in law. The Tribunal further concluded that the contentions of the representative for the workman are not tenable and as such the reference order in question was set aside and quashed. It was, however, made open to the State Government to consider on the basis of discussions and observations made in the award whether a fresh reference should be made or not.
On a query made by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner has factually informed the Court that the workman did not approach the State Government for getting a fresh reference of dispute. The petitioner is no longer in service w.e.f. 1.11.90. No illegality or infirmity could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned award. More than 16 years have passed since the date of termination of the service of the petitioner as such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal.
In the instant case, the contention of the employer was that the workman has himself resigned from the job as such apart from reference to the Labour Court regarding illegal termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 1.11.90 as claimed by him reference ought to also have been made whether the workman has himself resigned from the job or not and if not, what relief he is entitled as the stand of the employer is that the workman has himself resigned from the job w.e.f. 1.11.90 and his services have not been terminated by them.
It appears that the reference order was made on assumption that the employer has terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 1.11.90. Reference should in my opinion be made on the basis of the stand taken by the parties during the conciliation proceedings to reflect the nature of the dispute. Until and unless the real dispute between the parties is fully reflected in the reference justice cannot be done. The Labour Court has examined the matter in great details in the award and has rightly come to the conclusion that the reference is bad in law as the Government is not competent to decide the real dispute between the parties on the basis of material before it.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.