Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL, AZAMGARH & OTHERS versus P.O. LABOUR COURT, GORAKHPUR & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital, Azamgarh & Others v. P.O. Labour Court, Gorakhpur & Another - WRIT - C No. 11476 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 7387 (23 April 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.23)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11476 of 2001

Medical Superintendent, Christian Hospital, Azamgarh and another  vs.  Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and another

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

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.

23.4.2007

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.