Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER versus OM PRAKASH & 3 OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Another v. Om Prakash & 3 Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1419 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19388 (16 November 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

CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.1419 of 2006

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another

Vs.

Om Prakash and others

and

Special Appeal No.1418 of 2006

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another

Vs.

Ranjit Prasad

and

Special Appeal No.1417 of 2006

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another

Vs.

Mazhar Ali and others

and

Special Appeal No.1397 of 2006

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another

Vs.

Santosh Kumar Pandey

and

Special Appeal No.1416 of 2006

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another

Vs.

Pardesi Ali and another

Counsel for the appellants: 1. Sri Ranjit Saxena, Adv.

         Counsel for the respondents: 2. Sri Agrawal, Adv. 3.        Miss. Sumati Rani Gupta, Adv.

~~~~~

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

The appeal from the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge in this matter, which was passed on the 31st of August, 2006, is summarily taken up and disposed of.

We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and substantially also with the order passed by his Lordship, excepting that we are of the opinion that although the reemployment should be granted immediately to the respondents before us, whose case has been espoused by Mr. Agrawal, yet arrear wages are not called for to be paid to them.

Very briefly speaking, the facts are these. Sometime in or about 1991, an award was passed on a reference being made at the instance of the Union concerned in Adjudication Case No.305 of 1991. The award directed reemployment of the retrenched workmen, amongst whom all the appearing respondents before us were included, and such reemployment was to be granted with continuity of service.

The appellants did nothing in the matter for several years, but writs were filed from about the year 1998 challenging the said Labour Court's award and orders of stay were obtained.

Ultimately, on the 16th of March, 2004, the same Hon'ble Single Judge, who has passed the impugned order, passed an earlier order, the ordering portion of which is set out below:-

"The labour court had directed by the impugned award that the respondents be taken in service immediately and paid wages from date of award. This direction is not proper. The condition of new recruitment was that old workers would be screened and interviewed and those who are found suitable for the work on which they are employed earlier will be employed. The respondents have therefore to undergo same exercise. The petitioner will therefore, screen the respondents and if they are found suitable for the job which they were performing at the time of their termination, they will be reemployed. This award of the Labour Court impugned in this case is modified accordingly.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

The respondents were, no doubt called, for being heard and examined by the appellants, and an order was passed on the 29th of June, 2004. The respondents were all simply rejected; no details are to be found in the order of the 29th of June, 2004; no details are to be found in the affidavit in opposition filed in the Court below on behalf of the appellants.

The dissatisfaction expressed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, i.e., Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari, in this regard is best put in his Lordship's own words, which are set out below:

"Out of 22 persons 20 appeared before the selection committee and they were not found up to the mark, therefore they could not be given appointment.

It is also submitted that neither any written test was taken nor any suitability of the 20 workmen was considered. The vacancies were in respect of coolies and no particular test was needed for reemployment of the petitioners as coolie. Since it was not a test for fresh recruitment all that had to be seen was whether the 20 workmen who appeared before the selection committee were having a good health and whether they could work as coolie. There was no indication in the order dated 29.6.2004 as to what was deficiency in the 20 workmen who appeared before the selection committee. It is also stated that when the petitioners came to know about the order dated 29.6.2004 they had approached the KESCO for being given a copy of the report but they were denied the same for which they were told that it was an inter-departmental matter and they were not entitled to get a copy of the report."

No doubt, after being dissatisfied with the report, his Lordship could conceivably send the respondents back again to have another test; conceivably there would be another refusal; conceivably there would be another writ; but if these Coolies-respondents go on like this for ever from 1991, they will die before they get a decision.

In our opinion, the time has come for the Court simply to state that they deserve reemployment, and they be given the same at least now. The order is accordingly passed, and within three days from the date hereof, each of the respondents, who are the clients of Mr. Agrawal, will be given reemployment; in case of failure to give such reemployment, they will be entitled to arrear wages from today until such reemployment is granted.

The appeal is thus, partly dismissed in confirming the order of reemployment, and is partly allowed striking out that portion of the order, which directs arrear wages to be paid from the year 1991.

The common order will govern all five appeals.

Dt/-16.11.2006

RKK/-


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.