Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS versus LABOUR COURT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. & Others v. Labour Court & Others - WRIT - C No. 13286 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 961 (29 September 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. 13286 of 1996

State of U.P. & others.         ----      Petitioners

Vs.

The Labour Court, Allahabad & others   --        Respondents.

----

Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

Heard Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 6.

1. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents no. 2 to 6 were engaged as daily wagers as per necessity of work on Muster Roll by the Assistant Engineer, Ramganga Canal, in the Irrigation department. The respondents No. 2 to 6 having not been regularised in service raised an industrial dispute and the matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the State Government and the State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Allahabad- respondent no. 1, under Section 4-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for deciding the matter on the following points:

"Whether the Employer should have regularised the services of the four Beldars mentioned in the appendix, if yes, then from which date?

2 The aforesaid dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 127 of 1991. The respondents No. 2 to 6 filed their written statement and pleadings were exchanged in between the parties. The Labour Court- respondent no. 1 after hearing the parties passed the impugned award

2

dated 4.10.1994 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 6 directing the petitioners, herein,  (respondents in the proceedings) to regularize their services since they have continuously worked for more than three years and provide other consequential benefits.

3. Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed this writ petition and in rebuttal a counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents no. 2 to 6.  

4. I have looked into the record of the case and find that the respondent no. 1- Labour Court, Allahabad has passed the award only on the ground that the respondents no. 2 to 6 have been regularly working for more than three years, as daily wagers and, therefore, they are entitled for regularization. The Labour Court has not mentioned in the impugned award, as to whether any substantive vacancy existed or not and as to whether the workmen could be appointed against the said vacancies. In my view, this direction of regularizing the services of the respondents no. 2 to 6- workmen is de-hors the rules of regularization of the U.P. Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the apex Court rendered in State of U.P. & others Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and another ( AIR 1996 S.C. 708) wherein it has been held that daily wagers in class IV service could be directed for being regularised against the substantive posts according to the service rules which existed. In my view the Labour Court- respondent no.1 was not justified in giving the said direction for regularization of the respondents no. 2 to 6 under the

3

impugned award.  The respondents no. 2 to 6 were only daily wagers and in view of the settled law they could not claim the same pay scale as regular employees nor to any other benefits admissible to such regular employees. For getting regular appointment and regular pay scale, the respondents no. 2 to 6 shall have to pas regular selection, in accordance with the rules and they cannot be regularised without such selection. In view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, and observations made hereinabove, the appropriate course would be that as and when regular posts are created or posts fall vacant, these daily wage employees, on the basis of their seniority, length of service and performance of work, may be considered for regularization, according to rules. Until then their services will be taken as and when exigencies would arise and payment of daily wagers made by the concerned authority.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 4.10.1994 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.    

Dt. 29.9.2004

Kdo


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.