Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ALLAHABAD versus VIPIN BIHARI LAL SRIVASTAVA & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Allahabad v. Vipin Bihari Lal Srivastava & Another - WRIT - C No. 17204 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 1560 (20 January 2006)

 

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. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 17204 of 1998

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

vs.

Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava and another

..

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri A.B. Saran, Sri Dhananjai Prasad learned counsel for the respondent workman and have perused the record of the case.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned award dated 28.1.1998 passed in Industrial Dispute no. 111 of 1987, by which the respondent workman had been reinstated with back wages.

The award of the tribunal records findings of fact that even though the workman had remained absent from duty from 25.9.1982 to 5.6.1984, his absence with leave stood condoned by virtue of the letter dated 3.8.1984 issued by the petitioner by which the respondent workman was called back to work.

For the later period, the award records another finding of fact that the workman had been sending leave applications for his alleged illness, which had been received in the branch office.

The tribunal has also recorded that the management witness did not state as to what happened to the leave applications filed by the concerned workman and therefore it would be implied that the leave had been sanctioned.

The tribunal has also accepted the contention of the respondent workman that when the Deputy Chief Medical Officer went to examine him, he had gone to his personal physician.

The ultimate, conclusion drawn by the tribunal is that the concerned workman had not remained absent unauthorizedly from duty and therefore the charge against him for being absent unauthorisedly failed. The tribunal, in the result, set aside the action of the management in awarding punishment of removal and reinstated the workman with back wages and all consequential benefits.

The findings of fact as recorded by the tribunal are there but while granting relief, the tribunal had granted full back wages to the respondent workman, even though it has come on record that he had not worked for that period. For the period the respondent workman had not actually worked was also a long period.

It is also contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition no. 10117 of 1991 in which he obtained a stay order. As a result of which, the proceedings before the tribunal remained stayed for a period of six years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that the entire proceedings dragged on account of the stay order obtained by the respondent workman in the earlier case and now he cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the same. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner has force and is liable to be accepted by this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having considered the facts and circumstances of the entire case, I, modify the impugned award of the tribunal to the extent that the respondent workman shall be given full wages from 28.1.1998 i.e. from the date of the award, within two months from today. It is also directed that the respondent workman shall join the services of the petitioner immediately. If the respondent workman fails to do so within 15 days from today, it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate action against him.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated  20.1.2006

Rk.17204.98.9


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.