High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vijay Pal & Others v. Ist A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - C No. 39875 of 2002  RD-AH 15056 (31 August 2006)
Judgement reserved on 7.8.2006
Judgement delivered on 31.8.2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10104 of 1997
State of U.P Versus Ram Kishan and another
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39391 of 2000
State of U.P Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29875 of 2002
Ram Kishan Versus State of U.P.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
First Writ Petition
This writ petition is directed against an award dated 16.7.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court II U.P Ghaziabad in adjudication case No. 173 of 1995. The reference which was required to be decided by the Labour Court was to the effect that as to whether termination of services / retrenchment of Ram Kishan, respondent No.1 in this writ petition by employer / Executive Engineer (Temporary Division Lok Nirman Vibhag now construction division II Bulandshahr) on 26.2.1993 was valid or not.
Respondent No.1, Ram Kishan was appointed on the post of mate on 26.8.1985. According to the workman since 26.2.1993, he was not allocated any work and his services were orally terminated since the said date. The employer stated that the workman voluntarily resigned on 2.3.1993. It is strange that no request for framing additional issue pertaining to resignation was made by the employer before the Labour Court. The Labour Court noted this omission still it thoroughly discussed the question of alleged resignation.
The case of the workman was that under some Government Orders issued in 1989, he and several other similarly situate workmen were entitled to regularization and they were accordingly making the demand for regularization and in respect thereof they had been made to sign blank papers. According to the workman his resignation letter was written by the employer himself on the said blank paper, containing his signatures.
There was some dispute in between the parties regarding month of appointment of workman. According to one side, it was February 1985 and according to other side, it was August 1985. Labour Court rightly held that it would not make much difference in deciding the case on merit hence it was not necessary to decide the same. Employer clearly admitted that in the year 1985 the workman was appointed by it however at some places it was asserted by the employer that the workman was not its employee. The said assertion was rather fantastic as at several places the employer admitted that workman was employed by it in the year 1985 and he continued to work at least till 25.2.1993. The Labour Court found that the resignation letter was not in the handwriting of the workman, it was not given by the workman and the same was forged. Ultimately Labour Court directed that the workman must be reinstated with full back wages.
The findings recorded by the Labour Court are pure findings of fact which can not be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise there does not appear to be any error in the said finding. Labour court rightly observed that there was absolutely no sense of resigning when the workman was working for about 7 or 8 years.
Accordingly order of Labour Court in respect of reinstatement is confirmed.
Second And Third Writ Petitions
Second writ petition is directed against recovery certificate dated 28.3.2000 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the award, which is subject matter of the first writ petition.
Through third writ petition by the workman a prayer for mandamus directing Collector, Bulandshahr to recover an amount of Rs. 84434/- from Executive Engineer Construction Division II P.W.D, Bulandshahr in pursuance of recovery order dated 5.3.2002 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, has been made.
In the first writ petition an application has been filed on 14.7.2006 by the workman for direction to the employer petitioner to pay wages of mate, as are being made to other mates, to the workman. Inspite of the award which was not stayed by this court, workman was reinstated with effect from 10.1.2003. It is also stated on behalf of the workman that he is being paid the wages of daily wager on the ground that writ petition against his reinstatement is pending in this court. It also appears that in pursuance of the award substantial amount has been paid as back wages to the petitioner however still some amount remains unpaid.
The Supreme Court in several authorities including the authority of Haryana SEDC Vs. Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427 has held that along with reinstatement it is not absolutely essential in every case to award full back wages. As substantial amount has already been paid to the workman hence it is directed that workman shall not be entitled to any additional amount towards his wages etc for the period starting from his termination till date. However from today onwards he shall be paid the same wages / salary as is being paid to other similarly situate mates who were appointed in 1985.
Accordingly all the three writ petitions are disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.