Allahabad High Court
M/S Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi vs Presiding Officer, L.Court & ... on 16 May, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 28
Civil Misc. Recall/Review Application No.203017 of 2007
IN
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45855 of 1999
Petitioner :- M/S Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi
Respondent :- Presiding Officer, L.Court & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Prakash Padia
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.N. Singh,Gopal Mishra,N.K. Mishra
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the workman applicant in review petition and Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the employer petitioner/opposite party in the review petition.
Through this petition review of my judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 has been sought.
Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel has argued that termination order was utterly illegal. In this regard particular reference has been made to Section 25 N specifically its sub section 7 of Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been argued that there is no perversity in the award of the labour court hence High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should not have interfered in the said award. It has further been argued that as termination was illegal hence in normal course reinstatement with backwages should have been directed. In this regard reference has been made to the following authorities:
Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 2010(3) SCC 192.
M/S Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. Vs. Ram Bahagat (S.C.) 2002(3) ESC 133
L. Robert D'souza Vs. Execuive Engineer 1982(1) SCC 645 and
D.K. Yadav Vs. M/s. J.M.A. Industries 1993(67) FLR 111.
Sri Padia, learned counsel for employer has cited the authority of Lily Tomas and others Vs. Union of India and others 2000(6) SCC 224 para 52 and 56 regarding scope of review.
Sri Padia, learned counsel has further argued that review petition is not in proper form as no ground has been mentioned therein.
I am not entering into the technical aspect as to whether review is in proper form or not.
In respect of power of review Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel has placed reliance upon State of Maharashtra Vs. R.S. Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249.
In my judgment dated 6.8.2007 sought to be reviewed I categorically held as follows:
"Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that even though, it was necessary for the University-employer to pay retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act still for non-payment of the said retrenchment compensation reinstatement with full back wages was not the appropriate order.
Accordingly, first writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the University-employer that it must pay consolidated damages/compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Durga Prasad-respondent No.2 in the first writ petition in addition to any amount, which may have been paid to him by now. This amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid within three months failing which @1% per month interest shall be payable since after three months till actual payment. "
As I have already held in my judgment that retrenchment was not fully legal hence there is no need to decide this question again as to whether retrenchment was illegal or not.
However, the question is as to whether in every case after holding the retrenchment to be illegal reinstatement is to be awarded. In my opinion the answer has to be in the negative. The workman was not even confirmed.
Some authorities have been mentioned by me in my judgment dated 6.8.2008. In this regard reference may be made to the following authorities also where in it has been held that if a daily wager has worked for very long time and even if his termination is illegal still the proper relief to be granted is award of damages and not reinstatement.
1. Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, AIR 2008 S.C. 1955
2. Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty 2010(9) JT 262.
3. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, AIR 2009 S.C. 3004
4. Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2140
Annexure 2 to the writ petition is the letter of the workman admitting that he was involved in the theft of tag. In this regard the workman pleaded that he was forced to write the said letter. However, what was the occasion to force him or what type of force was exercised or what type of threat was extended was not stated by the workman. Accordingly, even if opportunity had been provided to the workman he would not have been able to show any cause. In such situation termination can not be set aside merely on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing vide Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, 2007 (4) SCC 54.
Learned counsel for the workman has further argued that for the same incident on the basis of which services of the workman were terminated, FIR had also been lodged, however, the criminal case ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court in the Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012(1) SCC 442 has held that standard of proof in criminal case and disciplinary proceedings is different and even after acquittal in criminal case an employee may be held liable in disciplinary proceedings.
Sri Padia, learned counsel for the University employer has argued that it was a case of loss of confidence also. In the aforementioned authority of Supreme Court of the Divisional Controller the aspect of loss of confidence has also been considered. However, in this review petition I am not deciding this question.
Accordingly, there is no error in my judgment dated 6.8.2007 hence review petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2013
vkg
