Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shashi Bhusan Mishra v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal (I) & Another - WRIT - C No. 19194 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 3812 (30 September 2005)


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).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  19194 of 2003

Shashi Bhusan              Vs.     Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal (I), Allahabad & another

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner claims that he was engaged by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad to work on daily wage basis on 16.11.1989. The contention is that the petitioner continued to work till 31.3.1995 and thereafter from 1.4.1995 the respondent-authority stopped taking work from him. In the year 1999 the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P. at Allahabad. By the impugned award dated 29.1.2002 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the reference sent by the State Government was decided against the workman and in favour of the employer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri J.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner with the following observations:

"14.In the present case before me admittedly the workman was engaged on daily wage without any appointment letter nor on any particular post. He has neither pleaded nor adduced evidence that he has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of termination. Thus there is no question of violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also not proved that any person junior to the workman was retained and the workman was retrenched. He has failed to name a single workman who was junior to him has been retained. From the evidence on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the employer has not terminated the service of the workman whereas he has himself stopped coming to work."

The copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner-workman before the Industrial Tribunal has been filed as Annexure-1. From a perusal of the same it is clear that nowhere has the workman stated that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months or in any 12 months prior to that also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has merely stated that because in the written statement it has been stated that one month's notice had not been given nor payment of one month's salary given to the petitioner in lieu thereof before terminating his services, thus, it will be presumed that the ground of having worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months had been raised. I am afraid that such an assumption cannot be drawn from the pleadings made by the workman. It is the duty of a party to raise specific pleadings so that the other party can raise objections to the same and lead evidence to disprove the same. Further it is not the case of the petitioner that he had led any evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days. He places reliance on certain transfer orders to show that he was working with the authority regularly. The transfer orders cannot be construed to mean that the workman is regular employee and has worked continuously with the employer. In such view of the matter the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to unjustified and against the record of the case so as to call for interference by this Court.

Besides this, the Tribunal also rejected the claim on the ground of laches, as the workman had approached the Industrial Tribunal after delay of several years. Without going into the said question since, in my view, the workman having failed to prove his claim, the order of the Tribunal is fully justified and not liable to be interfered with.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.