Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S TEJ SHOE FACTORY, JONS MILLS versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AGRA AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Tej Shoe Factory, Jons Mills v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Agra And Another - WRIT - C No. 7116 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 8401 (4 May 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. 20.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 7116 of  1998.

Taj Shoe Factory, Agra. ... Petitioner.

Versus

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and another.

... Respondents.

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.  3957 of  1999.

Shakil Uddin, Agra. ... Petitioner.

Versus

The Presiding Officer, Agra and another. ... Respondents.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

The writ petition no. 7116 of 1998 has been filed by the Employer against the award dated 23.08.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Agra in Adjudication Case no. 30/84.

The Writ Petition no. 3957 of 1999 has been filed by the employee Sri Shakil Uddin who is the respondent no. 2 in the writ petition no. 7116 of  1998.

The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Sri Shakil Uddin (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employee') was working as a Machine Operator since 21.01.1979 as a permanent employee and the employer has been taking the work from the employee since then.   The case of the employer is that the  employee has stopped coming the Factory for work from 18.11.1982 and thus, he has abundaned from his services.  It is admitted that the employer has not terminated the service of employee.  The employee has disputed the case of the employer.  The Labour Court has held that for the absence of the respondent no. 2, the employer has neither issued any Charge-sheet nor any enquiry has been set up and in this view of the matter, the employer was directed to reinstate with payment of back wages of 50% from 18.11.1982.

Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any evidence to prove that the employee was absent after 18.11.1982.  In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Labour Court.  Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, the Labour Court has awarded 50% towards the back wages from 18.11.1982.  Learned Counsel for the employer submitted that the employee has not worked any where else and was sitting idle without any employment, but no evidence has been adduced to show that during the period of unemployment, how he was running his family and meeting the expenses and what was the source of his livelihood.  Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I up held the order of the Labour Court allowing the back wages of 50% from 18.11.1982.

In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:04.05.2007.

MZ/-


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.