High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag Alld. v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 55965 of 2004  RD-AH 13402 (11 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18457 of 2004
Avadh Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & others
A N D
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55965 of 2004
M/s Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
The workman-Avadh Narain Pandey was initially engaged by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan on daily wages on 23.5.1994. On 1.8.1996 the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan disengaged the workman allegedly on the ground that the workman has been absenting himself without information to the employer. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 23 of 1998. On 17.5.1999 the parties entered into a compromise and on such basis the Case No. 23 of 1998 was decided on 1.10.1999. According to the said compromise, the workman was to be allowed to start working again on daily wages but he was not to claim back wages. In terms of the said order/compromise the workman joined duties. However, according to the employer since the workman again started absenting himself frequently from work without information, notice regarding the same was issued to the workman on 11.11.1999 and 15.11.1999 and the said notice was also published in the Newspaper on 31.11.1999/2.12.1999. Thereafter the workman was again disengaged with effect from 24.7.2000, regarding which notice was sent to him alongwith a bank draft of one month's wages, which was received and duly encashed by the workman. Aggrieved by his subsequent disengagement by the employer, the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 87 of 2001. The Labour Court, by the impugned award dated 26.5.2003 passed in the aforesaid case, has directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- as retrenchment compensation. Challenging the said award two writ petitions have been filed, one by the workman being Writ Petition No. 18457 of 2004, Avadh Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & others and the other by the employer being Writ Petition No. 55965 of 2004, M/s Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. State of U.P. & others. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same award, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
I have heard Sri Anant Vijai, learned counsel appearing for the workman and Sri D.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the employer in both the writ petitions. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The finding of the Labour Court is to the effect that the disengagement of the workman for the second time was because the services of the workman were not satisfactory and he had been absenting himself without information to the employer, regarding which the employer had also published a notice in the daily Newspaper. The Labour Court was, however, of the view that the same would not be sufficient ground for discharging him from duties in violation of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, considering the totality of the circumstances and being of the view that the services of the workman were not satisfactory, the Labour Court declined the prayer for reinstatement in service and instead directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- as retrenchment compensation.
In my view, in the present set of facts, the Labour Court has not faulted in declining to reinstate the workman. Earlier also, after having worked for nearly two years from 1994 to 1996, finding that the workman had been absenting himself from duties without information, he was disengaged. The adjudication case arising out of such proceedings culminated in a compromise wherein the workman was not to get back wages and was given a fresh chance to serve the employer. Since the finding of the Labour Court is specific that the attitude of the workman has not changed and his work and conduct was not satisfactory as he continued to absent himself from duties without information, the workman being only a daily wager who would not have a vested right to any post on which he could be regularized in service, he was rightly not reinstated in service.
Even otherwise, the question of reinstatement now does not arise as it is the categorical case of the employer that after an order which has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in some other case, being Special Appeal No. 928 of 2004 wherein a direction has been issued that the employer-Hindi Sahitya Sammelan will not award any certificates/diplomas for the courses related to the Indian Medicines, the Ayurvedic Department has been closed down and consequently the process of examination has been completely stopped and since the workman in question was engaged on daily wage basis in the examination section which has been closed down, there is no work available now even for the regular employees.
As regards the retrenchment compensation, which has been awarded by the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same appears to be on the lower side and with the consent of the learned counsel for the employer, the same is raised to Rs. 15,000/- which, in my view, would be just and proper. The said compensation shall be paid to the workman within three weeks from today.
In the result Writ Petition No. 55965 of 2004 is dismissed and the Writ Petition No. 18457 of 2004 is partly allowed to the extent indicated as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.