State Of U.P. Thru; Joint Director ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 966 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22089 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru; Joint Director (Industry)
 
Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ms. Suman Sirohi, S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.

By means of this writ petition  the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court  passed in Adjudication Case No. 46 of 1997 dated 9.5.2013. The said award was published on 4.10.2013.

The brief facts are that respondent no.2 was engaged in the Government of India  project, namely, Second All India Census of Small Scale Industrial Unit  in the State of Uttar Pradesh for a period of eight months on monthly salary. Implementing agency of the project was the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent's term  of eight months came to an end and, therefore, he was disengaged which led to filing of the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 25613 of 1990 (Mohd. Arshad Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated granting them continuity in service with full back wages as well as issuing direction to consider their regularization if the Department is in existence.

Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the project itself came to an end in 1992  and, therefore, there was no question of reinstatement of respondent no.2. Since there was a direction of the Court, despite the project itself having been over,  respondent no.2 was fully compensated  and was declared retrenched according to the procedure prescribed under Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and about Rs.90600/- were paid  as compensation and back wages.

Dissatisfied,  the respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the court below  and the dispute has now been concluded  by the award impugned. The sole ground of passing of the award in favour of respondent no.2 is that the order of the High Court was not complied with.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The initial engagement of respondent no.2 was in a project of Government of India  only for a period of eight months. The project having concluded, there was no right of respondent no.2 to continue in service. The order in the said  writ petition also takes note of the fact that the petitioners' case for regularization be considered only if the department is in existence. 

In the present case, the respondent no.2 was not appointed  on any sanctioned post, but was engaged for a specific purpose in a project and the project having been concluded  and the State authorities having complied with Section 6-N of the Act, the  Labour Court  ought to have considered  this aspect of the matter.

The  matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date.

The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondents within a week. 

List after service of notice.

Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned award dated 9.5.2013 shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 17.4.2014

SKM