Allahabad High Court
Amar Kumar Pandey vs Ram Ganga Command ,Kanpur & Others on 12 October, 2012
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? AFR
Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10323 of 1995
Petitioner :- Amar Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- Ram Ganga Command ,Kanpur & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.N.Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 24.8.1993 and the order dated 15.7.1994.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute claiming that he was appointed on the post of Chaukidar on permanent basis w.e.f. 17.9.1979 and was posted under the Soil Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur. It is stated that he was appointed by the Member Secretary of the Ram Ganga Command (Project). After about a year, the Soil Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur lodged a first information report against the petitioner for committing fraud and impersonation, in the police station Kotwali, District Fatehpur and the police thereafter submitted a chargesheet in the matter and the case was registered as case crime no. 2439 of 1983 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of this the respondent no.1 terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 12.7.1980 w.e.f. 7.6.1980, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His submission further is that subsequently, he was acquitted in the criminal case honourably. When the petitioner presented himself before the respondent no.1 to give him joining, the respondent no.1 refused to take the petitioner back in service. Thereupon the petitioner applied for conciliation but no settlement could take place. As such the State Government by order dated 4.6.1991 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication and the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 208 of 1991. According to the petitioner, he submitted all his documents and other evidence. The Labour Court by its award dated 24.8.1993 held the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 7.6.1980 to be illegal and directed the respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service but denied him backwages on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to state before the Labour Court, as to whether during the period he was out of service he had not been gainfully employed.
Thereafter on 6.4.1994, the petitioner filed a misc. Application 27-B, under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was contested and the Labour Court thereafter by its order dated 15.7.1994, awarded backwages from 24.8.1993 i.e. date of the award in Adjudication Case No. 208 of 1991 till the date of his reinstatement.
I have heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Sri B.N. Singh has submitted that the award dated 24.8.1993, passed by the Labour Court was never challenged by the respondent no.1 and therefore, the findings recorded therein and the direction given therein had become final. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Department had alleged that the so called appointment letter was a fraudulent document and it is on this basis that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner. However, he further submitted that case crime no. 208 of 1991, was instituted in the court of C.J.M. Fatehpur and a chargesheet was issued. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was honourably acquitted and therefore, it was no longer open for the respondent to insist that the appointment letter appointing the petitioner as Chaukidar under the respondent no.1 was obtained fraudulently and was forged document. Against the award given in Adjudication Case no. 208 of 1991, no writ petition was filed by the respondents and the award of the Labour Court, therefore was not challenged by the respondents and the same has attained finality.
The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once his appointment has been held to be bad, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages as his appointment was of a permanent nature.
In the misc. case under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has however, only awarded him backwages from the date of the first award i.e. from 24.8.1993 till the date of his reinstatement. The submission of the learned counsel is that since his appointment was of a permanent nature and the order of termination has been held to be bad, he was entitled to full backwages.
I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Mata Prashad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Even though, the award dated 24.8.1993 had attained finality, however, in my opinion, the petitioner was not entitled to full backwages as he was not able to demonstrate before the court below that during the period after his termination from service, he had not been gainfully employed.
The Supreme Court in the case reported in 2011 (3) ESC 514 (SC), Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Counsel, Sanaur, while modifying the directions given in the award of the Labour Court has directed that the appellant shall be entitled to wages for the period between the date of the award and the date of actual reinstatement. Para 28 of the judgment reads as follows:
"28. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the appellant is restored. If the respondent shall reinstate the appellant within a period of four weeks from today, the appellant shall also be entitled to wages for the period between the date of award and the date of actual reinstatement. The respondent shall pay the arrears to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order."
In the present case, the petitioner allegedly is stated to have been appointed by one Laxhmi Chandra, Member Secretary of the respondent no.1 but when he was required to produce the appointment letter, he stated that his house had caught fire and the appointment letter was destroyed and therefore, he could not trace out same. In this regard a report has also been lodged at the police station by his wife.
Be that as it may, the Labour Court while considering the entire case of the petitioner in the award dated 24.8.1993 and the order dated 15.7.1994 has recorded all the facts and thereafter come to the conclusion that the petitioner is only entitled to backwages for the period from the date of the first award till date of his reinstatement. Similar direction has been given by the Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment in the case of Devinder Singh (supra).
In the circumstances, having gone through the award dated 24.8.1993 and the order dated 15.7.1994 and the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh (supra), in my opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the two impugned orders.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.10.2012
N Tiwari
