Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P.STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Another - WRIT - C No. 11476 of 1998 [2004] RD-AH 1300 (2 November 2004)

 

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.51

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11476 of 1998

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.   Vs. The Presiding Office and others

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh D.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel.1.

2. The petitioner has filed writ petition no. 11476 of 1998, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer and others, challenging the impugned award dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), passed by respondent no.1- the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.3 of 1995 on the question as to whether the termination of services of the workman-Ram Yadu Yadav by  the employer w.e.f. 1.4.1994 was valid/appropriate and, if not then to what relief was the workman entitled to.  Another writ petition no. 11477 of 1998 has been filed by the petitioner, U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer and others, challenging the impugned award dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), passed by respondent no.1-the Presiding Officer-Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 9 of 1995 on the question as to whether the respondent should have declared its workman Ram Yadu Yadu a permanent employee, if so then from what date and other consequences.  Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same facts and issues between the same parties and since, the other writ petition is to be decided on the basis of the out come of the earlier writ petition no. 11476 of 1998, both the writ petitions are being decided together.  

3. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.2 was admittedly engaged by the petitioner to work as a temporary workman in the Sugar Factory of the petitioner w.e.f. January, 1992 in the bungalow of Chief Engineer.  However, he has been paid salary from the factory, as per the attendance register he worked for the period of 15 to 18 days in each month and he was paid wages accordingly.  This fact has been specifically admitted by respondent no.2 and in his oral statement submitted before the Labour Court, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.  His services are alleged to have been dispensed with w.e.f 1.4.2004.

4. Being aggrieved, respondent no.2 raised the U.P. Industrial Dispute and respondent no.1 finally gave an impugned award dated 18.12.1996 in favour of the workman respondent no.2 treating him as permanent employee on the basis that he had worked for 12 calendar month for 30 days in each month and since no notice of termination was issued in accordance with provision of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947( hereinafter referred to as the Act).  The termination of the service of respondent no.2 were wrong bad and illegal and he was held to be entitled to reinstatement in service w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and also to be paid the wages to which he was entitled to in accordance with law.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner  has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, challenging the impugned award dated 18.12.1996, mainly on the ground that the Labour Court had erred in not considering  the fact that respondent no.2 had been appointed against a temporary nature of work, and ,thus, he was not entitled to any benefit under the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the reference to the Labour Court was bad in law and the impugned award is absolutely illegal,  the workman had no right to remain in service, as he has no lien on any post.  In support of the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in FLR, 1997 (76), 237.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has stressed that respondent workman would be  deemed to be a permanent workman by virtue of clause B of the standing order which applicable in the present wherein the classification of the workmen has been mentioned and defined.  A permanent workman has been defined as under:

" (1) A " permanent workman", is one who is engaged on work a permanent nature, lasting throughout the year and has completed his probationary period: "

7. Since the workman had been engaged on the work of permanent nature in mechanical department of the petitioner and had completed his probation period and the word probationary has been defined as under:

" (IV) A " probationer" is one who is provisionally employed for a period to be specified by the management at the time of employment to fill a permanent vacancy or a new post of permanent nature and who may be confirmed at the completion of that period, if his services are found satisfactory.  The probationary period shall not exceed six months:"

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has further submitted that the writ petition in fact should have been dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts and evidence by the petitioner to the extent that the statement of Sri Jagdish Chandra-W.W.2 had not been annexed along with the writ petition.  However, the learned counsel has failed to give a satisfactory reply as to what prevented respondent no.2 from filing the said evidence on which he was relying.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his case has also relied upon the decision in case of S.M.Nilajkar and others  Vs. Telecom. District Manager, Karnataka, reported in 2003 SSC, 673. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. I have looked into the record of the case and find that the respondent no.1- the Labour Court has passed the impugned award and arrived at a conclusion without any basis that the workman had worked against a permanent post regularly throughout the whole month and, completed more than 240 days, which fact is contrary to the oral submission made by the workman before the Labour Court, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.  Admittedly, the petitioner had worked for less than 240 days in one calendar year, as a domestic help at the bungalow of Chief Engineer and did not work in the Mills.  The impugned award dated 18.12.1996 is wrong, bad and illegal being based only on surmises and conjectures and is, thus, liable to be quashed.

11. In view of the above said facts, circumstances of the case and observations made herein before, the impugned award dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition no.11476 of 1998) is hereby quashed.  The writ petition is allowed.

Since the writ petition No. 11476 of 1998 has been allowed and the impugned award dated 18.12.1996 in Adjudication Case No. 3 of 1995 by which the workman had been reinstated in the service has been quashed, in consequence, the award dated 18.12.1986 in Adjudication Case No. 9 of 1995 by which the workman had been declared a permanent employee w.e.f 21.9.1994 is also quashed as the workman is not in service of the petitioner, he cannot be granted relief of having become permanent in service w.e.f. 21.9.1994.  This writ petition no. 11477 of 1998 is also accordingly allowed.  No order as to costs.

Dated: 2.11.2004

1/pkc    


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.