High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Murat v. State Of U.P. Thru' Revenue Secretary & Others - WRIT - C No. 10652 of 2004  RD-AH 5558 (10 November 2005)
Court no. 50
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10652 OF 1983
M/s Kaka Biscuit Manufacturing Company, Kanpur
Presiding Officer, Kanpur and others.
Hon�??ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent workman even in the revised list.
This petition is directed against an award of the labour court dated 29.4.1983 by which it has held that disengagement of the respondent workman was illegal and he has been reinstated with 50% backwages.
It appears that the respondent workman was an employee with the petitioner establishment for the last about 7 years. When he reported for work on 16.5.1981 he was asked by the management to sign some blank papers and on his refusal he was turned out and thereafter he was not allowed to enter the premises. Thus, he approached the Conciliation Officer and upon a failure report the State Government referred the dispute to the labour court, which was registered as adjudication case no. 30 of 1982. The labour court after considering the evidence on record has recorded categorical findings that the workman was illegally restrained from discharging his duty and thus, the disengagement was illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in fact the workman himself did not report for work and abandoned the service and as such the impugned award cannot be sustained. This very argument was raised before the labour court, which found that the respondent workman when restrained from entering the establishment had sent a registered A.D. letter on 7.5.1981 to the management which was duly received by them on 11.5.1981 asking the management to allow him to work but they did not do so. In fact the case set up by the management that they had asked the workman to report for working has been disbelieved by the labour court on the evidence available on record. Theworkman in his statement had clearly stated that he reported for work along with an official of the union but in vane. The labour court has examined all the aspects and the evidence on record and its conclusions are based thereon and which have not been shown to be perverse.
For the reasons given above, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.