Allahabad High Court
Gangeshwar Ltd. vs State Of U.P. & Others on 23 August, 2012
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18146 of 1998
Petitioner :- Gangeshwar Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Bharati Sapru,Diptiman Singh,S.D. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Km. Suman Sirohi,Sumati Rani Gupta
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7 Keshar Singh, Sigaru, Mangal Singh and Phool Singh.
This writ petition by the employer is directed against restoration order dated 22.4.1998 passed in Adjudication case no.190 of 1988 by presiding officer labour court Dehradun (which at the time was in U.P. and now in Uttarakhand). The registered office and factory of the employer which is a company is situate at Deoband, District Saharanpur which is in U.P. Through the said order ex-parte award dated 7.5.1997 based on settlement, was set aside. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of 52 of its workmen whose names were given in the referring order was just and valid or not. The 52 workmen authorised five persons among themselves to represent their case i.e. Santu, respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 to 7. Out of the 52 affected workmen, Santu alone entered into settlement on 6.5.1997 with the employer and on the basis of that award was given on 7.5.1997 by the labour court. The settlement did not contain the signatures of any other old workman not even of respondent no. 4 to 7. The Presiding Officer of the labour court through award dated 7.5.1997 held that the settlement was quite appropriate hence he accepted the same and gave the award in terms of the settlement.
In the award dated 7.5.1997 there is absolutely no mention that what was the settlement. Thereafter, restoration application was filed on behalf of all the workmen by respondent nos. 4 to 7 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 22.4.1998 and award dated 7.5.1997 was treated to be ex parte against all the workman accept Santu and was set aside and dates were fixed for different stages of the hearing.
Initially, the five representatives workmen (respondent nos. 3 to 7) appointed Sri Prem Nath Garg as their authorised representative. Thereafter, Sri R.K. Bohra was appointed as such. However, the settlement contained thumb impression of only Santu and not of the remaining four representatives. Only Santu gave authority in favour of Mangal Dev Sharma while earlier Sri Prem Nath Garg and thereafter Sri Bohra had been appointed by all the five representatives workmen. Accordingly the labour court held that the settlement could be binding only upon Santu and not others.
The settlement is annexed along with the earlier award dated 7.5.1997. Under the settlement it was mentioned that employers had agreed that they would give temporary appointment during the crushing seasons only to Sri Santu and his son Babu Ram and rest of the workmen concerned (51 in number) will not be entitled to any relief. It was further agreed that in addition to Santu and his son four new persons will also be taken as temporary/substitute workmen during crushing seasons. Neither the four new persons nor son of Santu were among the 52 workmen regarding whom reference was made and whose names were mentioned in the referring order.
The settlement contained signatures of Santu, his son and four persons who were to be newly inducted as workers and of Mangal Dev Sharma appointed as workers authorised representative by Santu alone.
It is obvious that the settlement was utterly unfair for the 51 workmen. Santu virtually ditched his colleagues and played fraud upon them. In any case all the 52 workmen had authorised five persons i.e. Sant Ram (or Santu) and respondents no. 4 to 7 hence all of them could enter into settlement or could appoint some authorised representative. Sant Ram could neither enter into settlement nor appoint authorised representative. In the award dated 7.5.1997 it was not mentioned that how the award was just and fair. Even though the copy of the settlement was annexed along with the award but its contents or gist was not mentioned in the award.
Accordingly, I do not find any error in the restoration order.
However, in order to avoid any repetition of the same malpractice in future it is directed that each workman shall represent his own case before the labour court or shall appoint separate representative. Respondents 4 to 7 as well as all other workmen shall file their individual claims before the labour court within four months and thereafter matter shall be decided. Respondents 4 to 7 are obliged to intimate each and every workman concerned and bring this fact on record before the labour court otherwise their case shall not be considered by labour court. After expiry of the period of filing claim labour court shall decide the case within six months. If any settlement is arrived at it shall contain signature/thumb impression of each and every workman concerned and the labour court shall inquire from each and every signatory workman of the settlement about the correctness of his signatures/thumb impression. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.8.2012
vkg
