Allahabad High Court
Nagar Ayukta Nagar Nigam Kanpur ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ... on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29261 of 2015
Petitioner :- Nagar Ayukta Nagar Nigam Kanpur And Anr.
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari, Yashwant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Alok Kumar Srivastava, Bushra Maryam, Y.K. Sinha
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and; Shri Bushra Maryam and Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent workman.
2. Challenge has been raised to the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur, dated 28.04.2014 in Adjudication Case No. 226 of 1999 wherein the Labour Court has made an award of reinstatement with payment of Rs. 20,000/- as lump-sum compensation.
3. At the outset, it may be noted, upon the present writ petition being filed, following interim order dated 21.5.2015 was passed:
"Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned award dated 4.12.2014 published on 8.12.2014.
Shri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 workman has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgments in Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana & another, Civil Appeal No.346 of 2015 decided on 13.1.2015; K.V.S. Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No.412 of 2015 decided on 14.1.2015 and State of UP vs. Charan Singh Civil Appeal No.2381 of 2007 decided on 26.3.2015.
The matter requires consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri Y.K. Sinha appears for respondent no.3. The respondents are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.
If the petitioners comply Section 173 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the operation of the award dated 4.12.2014 would be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing."
4. Briefly, the respondent workman was appointed as Peon against oral order on 24.09.1992 with payment of wages Rs. 750/- per month. Upon his alleged oral termination on 01.04.1995, the respondent workman raised the aforesaid industrial dispute. It was referred to the Labour Court by order dated 31.07.1999. Before the Labour Court, both parties filed their pleadings and led evidence. Thereupon, the Labour Court had made the impugned award.
5. While framing the award, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year during the period of 24.09.1992 onwards.
6. In view of such finding, the award of reinstatement was made by the Labour Court.
7. In the present writ petition, challenge has been raised on various grounds including Government Order dated 06.12.1991, placing a freeze on the fresh recruitments by various local authorities.
8. At the same time, there is no material or evidence adduced or shown to exist as may suggest the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year is either perverse or wrong.
9. The respondent workman pleaded in the written statement of having worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year, some evidence also appears to have led in support thereof.
10. On the other hand, petitioner did not lead any evidence to establish the number of days the respondent workman may have worked. In any case, the aforesaid issue must lose its relevance, in the present facts, when the petitioner has itself reinstated the respondent workman and has found no objection in his working for the last almost seven years.
11. Therefore, the objection being raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on the award made may not find acceptance of the writ Court. The objection based on the strength of the Government Order dated 06.12.1991 also loses weight in face of the continued working of the respondent workman for the last almost seven years, now.
12. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the challenge raised in the writ petition is found to be largely academic and, in any case, involving hyper-technical objection as to the burden of proof that may have been on the respondent workman.
13. Even then, it has been noted above, the petitioner did not lead any evidence to dispute the claim made by the respondent workman of having worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year.
14. In view of the above, interference claimed in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is declined.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
Prakhar
