High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital, Azamgarh & Others v. P.O. Labour Court, Gorakhpur & Another - WRIT - C No. 11476 of 2001  RD-AH 7387 (23 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11476 of 2001
Medical Superintendent, Christian Hospital, Azamgarh and another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and another
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.11.1999 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur in Adjudication case no.239 of 1988. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the action of the employer-petitioner in terminating the services of its employee - respondent no.2 Ram Prasad with effect from 16.7.1987 was valid or not. Respondent no.2 was working as Mali (gardener). The Labour court mentioned that no evidence was given by the employers hence evidence of workman given on affidavit was to be believed. Ultimately Labour court held that retrenchment was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
In this writ petition on 9.5.2002 an order was passed directing the petitioner to reinstate opposite party no.2 within a month. An affidavit of compliance was filed on 4.12.2006, duplicate copy of which has been supplied. In para-2 of the said affidavit by Dr.Ashok Singh - petitioner no.2/Medical Superintend of petitioner no.1, it has been stated in para-2 that respondent no.2 has been permitted to join the service on 29.11.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioners categorically stated that as petitioners had taken respondent no.2 back in service hence they were not interested in challenging the impugned award in respect of retrenchment provided that they were not compelled to pay back wages. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 categorically stated that he did not press for back wages.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent no.2 shall be retained in service until he reaches the age of superannuation. It is further directed that since his termination till 29.1.2006 when he was again taken back in service, respondent no.2 shall not be entitled to any wages. It is made clear that in case respondent no.2 is found guilty of some serious mis-conduct, after due enquiry, then his services may be terminated in accordance with law otherwise he must be permitted to continue to work till he reaches the age of superannuation.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.