High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Municipal Corporation, Allahabad v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others - WRIT - C No. 14172 of 1998  RD-AH 9641 (21 May 2007)
Writ Petition No.14172 of 1998
Municipal Corporation, Allahabad. ................................................Petitioner
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. .................................Respondents.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award dated 28.2.1997 passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the case is, that the workman was appointed as a clerk in a permanent capacity on 17.7.1984 and that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days without any break in service. It is alleged that the workman services was illegally terminated by an order dated 23.12.1986 without issuing one month's notice and without payment of any compensation. It is also alleged that juniors to the workman were still working. On the other hand, the employers contended that the workman was appointed on a daily rated basis as a clerk on an exigency of service and has never worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calender year and that there is a provision for regular appointment on a post.
The labour court, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the workman was initially appointed for a period of 90 days, and thereafter, his services were extended from time to time and in this manner, the workman had worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break in service in a calender year. The labour court also found that the juniors to the petitioner were also working and their services had not been dispensed with. Consequently, the labour court came to the conclusion that the termination of the service of the workman was wholly arbitrary and was in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and consequently directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corporation) vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 2.5.2006, wherein the Supreme Court directed that instead of reinstating the workman, substantial justice would be served if compensation of Rs.30,000/- is paid towards compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar order may be passed in this writ petition.
In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. From a perusal of the award of the labour court, I find that the finding arrived at by the labour court was based on proper appreciation of the evidence that was brought on the record. The labour court found that the workman had worked continuously as a clerk on a substantive post for more than 240 days and that juniors to the petitioner were also working. The findings given by the labour court being based on appreciation of evidence is not perverse. Consequently, it is no longer open to this court to reconsider these findings of fact in a writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.