Allahabad High Court
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And 4 ... on 1 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No:- 2024:AHC:160759
Court No. 33
WRIT - C No:- 15483 of 2020
Petitioner :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court and 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner:- Mr. Vivek Saran, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mr. Gopal Narain,Advocate
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Narain, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of respondent no.2/1 and father of respondent nos. 2/2 and 2/3 was appointed as Junior Engineer in the petitioner's establishment. Husband of respondent no.2/1 was served with charge-sheet dated 17.4.1978, followed by his reply. A report dated 24.10.1981 was submitted on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Husband of respondent no.2/1 was terminated from the service by the petitioner's establishment, accordingly, industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.195 of 1984. In the aforementioned adjudication case, written statement was filed by the petitioner as well as husband of respondent no.2/1. Both the parties adduced their evidence in the aforementioned adjudication case. Respondent no.1/Labour Court vide award dated 2.9.1988 held that proceeding is not maintainable, accordingly, rejected the Adjudication Case No.195 of 1984. Against the award of the labour court dated 2.9.1988, husband of respondent no.2/1 filed Writ C No.4769 of 1989. During pendency of the writ petition, workman has expired and his legal heirs who are respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3, have been substituted. The writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 18.12.2017, remitting the matter back before the Labour Court to decide the adjudication case afresh on merit. After remand order dated 18.12.2017, passed by this Court, the proceeding was started before the labour court. The Labour Court vide award dated 16.9.2019, allowed the aforementioned Adjudication Case and held the termination of the husband of respondent no.2/1 as illegal and unfair. The Labour Court has also taken a sympathetic view to the matter that husband of respondent no.2/1-workman has expired during pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, accordingly, the Labour Court has ordered that the legal heir of deceased workman, shall be entitled for the wages from the date of termination till the date of retirement/death with all financial benefits. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned award dated 16.9.2019 as published on 16.11.2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Adjudication Case No.195 of 1984 (Annexure No.11)."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 7.10.2020 and granted the following interim order:-
"It is urged that despite specific plea by the employer that the employee was gainfully employed after termination of his service, the said issue has not been decided on merits solely on the ground that the employee had died during pendency of the proceedings, therefore question of his reinstatement does not arise and only monetary benefits are to be given to him. The submission is that the entire back wages has been allowed without negating the plea raised by the employer that the employee was gainfully employed.
The matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of respondents 2/1 to 2/3 has been accepted by Sri Gopal Narayan, who prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List in the week commencing 14.12.2020.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made, operation of the impugned award dated 16.9.2019 shall remain stayed, provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the back wages awarded, before the Labour Court within four weeks from today, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically.
The amount deposited in compliance of the instant order will be released in favour of respondents 2/1 to 2/3 without requiring them to furnish any security."
4. The petitioner could not complied the condition mentioned in the interim order dated 7.10.2020, accordingly, time extension application was filed which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6.9.2022, directing the petitioner to deposit 50 % of the back wages within a further period of 3 weeks and the Labour Court was directed to accept the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the domestic enquiry was unfair and improper as workman in his statement had accepted that he had personally appeared before the committee and filed his reply, accepting that bricks used in construction, were sub-standard and were of poor quality. He also submitted that the Labour Court has erred in law by holding that the issue of the workman being gainfully employed, has lost relevance subsequent to the death of the workman. He further submitted that the Labour Court overlooked that admittedly respondent no.2 was the Junior Engineer and his nature of job was to supervise, i.e., to look that the constructions are being carried out as per specifications and drawings and the material used of specified quality. He submitted that the workman has failed to discharge his duties which has resulted in the demolition of the entire construction which was raised under his supervision and control, accordingly, the same has caused financial loss to the petitioner as well as loss to his reputation also. He submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 submitted that the Labour Court after discussing the pleadings and evidence of the parties, recorded finding of fact of each and every issue, framed before the labour court. He further submitted that specific plea was taken in the written statement of the workman that no domestic enquiry has been done by the petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2015 (145) FLR 184, Mackinon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union and in (2013) 10 SCC 324, Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Others. He further submitted that workman had retired in the year 2002 and ultimately expired on 14.9.2014, as such, no interference in required against the impugned award and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the husband of respondent no.2/1 was terminated from service on 24.6.1983 but the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.195/1984, ultimately after remand order passed by this Court, allowed the claim of workman/husband of respondent no.2/1, setting aside the termination order dated 24.6.1983 and ordered for payment of wages of workman to the legal heir of deceased workman from the date of termination of service of workman till the date of retirement/death. There is also no dispute about the fact that this Court has ordered for deposit of 50 % of the back wages before the Labour Court which was ordered to be released in favour of respondent nos.2/1 to 2/3 without any security.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant portion of the impugned award will be necessary which are as under:-
समक्ष पीठासीन अधिकारी, श्रम न्यायालय, उत्तर प्रदेश, मेरठ।
उपस्थित
श्री श्रीराम सिंह : पीठासीन अधिकारी ।
अभिनिर्णय विवाद सं० 195/1984
(उ०प्र०, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 4-k, के अन्तर्गत)
सेवायोजक पक्ष
यू०पी० आवास विकास परिषद, 104 महात्मा गाँधी रोड, लखनऊ, द्वारा उसके आयुक्त ।
श्रमिक पक्ष
श्री आर०के० त्यागी पुत्र श्री शिवनाथ सिंह त्यागी, द्वारा श्री सियाराम त्यागी, लेक्चरार, डिफेन्स कालोनी रेलवे रोड, मुरादनगर जिला गाजियाबाद ।
अधिकृत प्रतिनिधिगण
सेवायोजक पक्ष की ओर से : श्री एन०के० भारद्वाज।
श्रमिक पक्ष की ओर से : श्री नरेश कुमार वर्मा।
उद्योगः - विविध
जिला - लखनऊ
दिनांक:- 16.09.2019
अभिनिर्णय
कार्यालय उत्तर प्रदेश शासन, श्रम अनुभाग-1 के संदर्भ पत्र संख्या 4134 (श्र०आ०)/36 श्रम (1), सी०पी० 156 (मेरठ)/83 दिनांक 20.06.1984 के अनुपालन में एक औद्योगिक विवाद जो उपरोक्त श्रमिक तथा सेवायोजक के मध्य है, को अभिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया है। औद्योगिक विवाद का विवरण निम्न प्रकार है:-
औद्योगिक विवाद का विवरण
"क्या सेवायोजकों द्वारा अपने श्रमिक आर०के० त्यागी (पुत्र श्री शिवनाथ सिंह त्यागी) की आदेश दिनांक 24.05.1983 द्वारा सेवायें समाप्त किया जाना उचित तथा/अथवा वैधानिक है यदि नहीं, तो सम्बन्धित श्रमिक क्या लाभ/अनुतोष (रिलीफ) पाने की अधिकारी है, तथा अन्य किस विवरण सहित?"
पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त अभिलेखों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट हुआ कि श्री त्यागी के विरूद्ध की गयी घरेलू जांच उनके विरूद्ध लगाये गये आरोपों के सापेक्ष फेयर व प्रोपर नहीं कही जा सकती। जांच अधिकारी द्वारा जिन आरोपों की जांच की गयी है उन पर जांच रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि आरोप संख्या 2 पूरी तरह सिद्ध है, आरोप संख्या 4 व 5 आंशिक रूप से सिद्ध और आरोप संख्या 1 व 3 सिद्ध नहीं हुये, परन्तु सेवायोजक द्वारा इसी जांच रिपोर्ट के आधार पर उन्हें दोषी मानकर सेवा से निष्कासन की सजा प्रस्तावित की गयी और उनसे प्रस्तावित दण्ड के विरूद्ध कारण बताने के लिये कहा गया। समस्त पत्रजात के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि श्रमिक को उसके बचाव का पूरा अवसर नहीं दिया गया है और उसके द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में व आरोपों के खण्डन में जो अभिलेख दिये गये हैं उनका भी सही ढंग से संज्ञान नहीं लिया गया। सेवा से निष्कासन एक कठोरतम दण्ड है, जिसके लिये जांच प्रक्रिया नैसर्गिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों का पूरी तरह पालन करते हुये, पारदर्शी ढंग से की जानी चाहिये, परन्तु वर्तमान मामले में ऐसा किया जाना दिखायी नहीं देता है। माननीय विभिन्न उच्च न्यायालयों और माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा घरेलू जांच से संबंधित कई मामलों में बहुत ही स्पष्ट मत व्यक्त किये गये हैं जिनमें आरोपी को बचाव का पूरा अवसर न दिये जाने एवं प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों का पालन न होने पर जांच को पूरी तरह गलत माना है।
वाद बिन्दु संख्या 4:-
4- Whether the employer are entitled to be granted an opportunity to justify the action taken against Sri R.K. Tyagi before this court in case issue no. 3 is decided in negative?
जैसा कि ऊपर उल्लेख में आया है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 18.12.2017 पारित किया गया है जो रिट याचिका संख्या 4769/1989 के मामले में है। यह रिट याचिका श्री आर०के० त्यागी द्वारा दायर की गयी थी जिसमें उल्लेख है कि उत्तर प्रदेश आवास विकास परिषद की ओर से दाखिल सप्लीमेन्ट्री काउन्टर एफीडेविट के पैरा-3 में यह कहा गया है कि श्री रवि कुमार गुप्ता, जूनियर इंजीनियर और श्री एन०के० गर्ग, असिस्टेन्ट इंजीनियर, जिनकी सेवायें याची (श्री आर०के० त्यागी) के साथ समाप्त की गयी थीं उन्हें कमशः दिनांक 29.03.1996 तथा दिनांक 26.09.2002 को परिषद की सेवाओं में वापस ले लिया गया है। इससे स्वतः स्पष्ट होता है कि इसी के समान 2 अन्य मामलों में जब परिषद द्वारा संबंधित श्रमिकों को सेवा में वापस लिया गया है और इस तथ्य की जानकारी माननीय उच्च न्यायालय को दी गयी है, जैसा कि उनके आदेश दिनांक 18.12.2017 में उल्लिखित किया गया है, फिर उसी के समान श्री त्यागी के मामले से परिषद द्वारा कोई अन्य स्टैण्ड लिया जाना न तो नैतिक दृष्टि से और न न्याय की दृष्टि से सही कहा जा सकता है और अब, जबकि श्री त्यागी की मृत्यु कई वर्ष पूर्व दिनांक 18.09.2014 को हो चुकी है, अब इस मामले में अग्रेत्तर किसी प्रकार की दोषारोपण व उसके सिद्धीकरण की कार्यवाही किया जाना नितान्त ही दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण होगी।
बाद बिन्दु संख्या 5:-
5- Whether Sri R.K. Tyagi is gainfully employed?
जैसा कि ऊपर उल्लेख आ चुका है कि श्री त्यागी की मृत्यु कई वर्ष पूर्व दिनांक 18.09.2014 को हो चुकी है, अतः उसके निस्तारण का कोई औचित्य नहीं रह जाता है।
श्री त्यागी की मृत्यु के पश्चात् उनके वारिसानों को पक्षकार बनाकर सुनवाई की कार्यवाही चल रही है और श्रमिक को हितलाभ देय होने की दशा में वे ही उसे शने के अधिकारी होंगे।
उक्त तमाम तथ्यों व न्यायिक विवेचना के दृष्टिगत निःसंदेह रूप से यह कहा जा सकता है कि सेवायोजकों द्वारा अपने श्रमिक की सेवायें दिनांक 24.05.1983 से समाप्त किया जाना पूर्णतया अनुचित व अवैधानिक है, परन्तु संबंधित श्रमिक की मृत्यु हो जाने के कारण वह सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित नहीं हो सकता और केवल आर्थिक लाभ ही उसके वारिसों को प्राप्त हो सकते हैं जो उसके जीवित रहने पर उसे प्राप्त होते। इस प्रकार सेवासमाप्ति की तिथि से सेवानिवृत्ति/मृत्यु की दिनांक 18.09.2014 तक जो वेतन व अन्य आर्थिक हितलाभ श्री त्यागी को देय होते, उनका भुगतान सेवायोजक उनके वारिसान 1-श्रीमती रेखा त्यागी उम्र लगभग 70 वर्ष पत्नी स्व० श्री राजकुमार त्यागी, 2- अतुल त्यागी उम्र लगभग 48 वर्ष पुत्र स्व० श्री राजकुमार त्यागी, 3-संजीव त्यागी उम्र लगभग 46 वर्ष पुत्र स्व० श्री राजकुमार त्यागी, निवासीगणः- राजीव कालोनी, सलारपुर, नोएडा, गौतमबुद्धनगर, को एवार्ड लागू होने की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्दर कर देवें, अन्यथा निर्धारित अवधि में भुगतान न होने पर देय धनराशि पर 5 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज की दर से व्याज भी देय होगा। तदाशय से अभिनिर्णय पारित किया जाता है। अभिनिर्णय के प्रकाशन की नियमानुसार अग्निम कार्यवाही की जावे।
दिनांक- 16.09 2019 ह० अप०
( श्रीराम सिंह)
पीठासीन अधिकारी
10. Upon perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court as quoted above, there is no further scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so far as it has been held by the labour court that termination order passed against the workman was illegal.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) has laid down the principle for grant of back wages. Paragraph Nos. 33 to 38 will be relevant for perusal, which are as under:
"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-a-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
34. Reverting to the case in hand, we find that the managements decision to terminate the appellants service was preceded by her suspension albeit without any rhyme or reason and even though the Division Bench of the High Court declared that she will be deemed to have rejoined her duty on 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits, the management neither allowed her to join the duty nor paid wages. Rather, after making a show of holding inquiry, the management terminated her service vide order dated 15.6.2007. The Tribunal found that action of the management to be wholly arbitrary and vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal further found that the allegations levelled against the appellant were frivolous. The Tribunal also took cognizance of the statement made on behalf of the appellant that she was not gainfully employed anywhere and the fact that the management had not controverted the same and ordered her reinstatement with full back wages.
35. The learned Single Judge agreed with the Tribunal that the action taken by the management to terminate the appellants service was per se illegal but set aside the award of back wages by making a cryptic observation that she had not proved the factum of non-employment during the intervening period. While doing so, the learned Single Judge not only overlooked the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.8404/2006, but also Rule 33 which prohibits an employee from taking employment elsewhere. Indeed, it was not even the pleaded case of the management that during the period of suspension, the appellant had left the Headquarter without prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer and thereby disentitling her from getting subsistence allowance or that during the intervening period she was gainfully employed elsewhere.
36. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed grave error by interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal for payment of back wages, ignoring that the charges levelled against the appellant were frivolous and the inquiry was held in gross violation of the rules of natural justice.
37. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored. The management shall pay full back wages to the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the appellant?s suspension till the date of actual reinstatement.
38. It is also made clear that in the event of non-compliance of this order, the management shall make itself liable to be punished under he Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Avtar Bhusan Bhartiya in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9096 of 2019 vide judgement dated 22.4.2022 has ordered for payment of 50% of the back wages considering the earlier case law including Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra). Paragraph Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of the judgement rendered in Allahabad Bank (Supra) will be relevant which are as under:-
"36. Therefore, even applying the ratio laid down in various decisions, we do not think that the employee could be granted anything more than what the High Court has awarded.
37. As we have pointed out at the beginning, the total period of service rendered by the Officer-employee before his dismissal from service, was about 15 years, from 1974 to 1989 and he attained the age of superannuation in February, 2013, meaning thereby that he was out of employment for 24 years. The High Court has taken this factor into consideration for limiting the back wages only to 50% and we find that the High Court has actually struck a balance. We do not wish to upset this balance. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition of the Officer-employee is also liable to be dismissed.
38. Accordingly, both the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed,
no costs."
13. In the instant matter, the workman has retired in the year 2002 as well as expired in the year 2014, as such, the Labour Court has considered the entire aspect of the case and ordered for full back wages from the date of termination to the date of retirement/death of the workman but considering the ratio of law laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and Allahabad Bank and Others (supra), the award of 50 % of the back wages to the legal heir of deceased - workman will be just and proper. This Court under the interim order has also ordered for deposit of 50 % of the back wages which was ordered to be released in favour fo respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 16.9.2019 as published on 16.11.2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Adjudication Case No.195/1984, is modified to the extent that respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 (legal heirs of deceased workman) shall be entitled for 50 % of the back wages in place of 100 % of the back wages along with other service benefit due under the impugned award. Petitioner corporation is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3, within a period of 3 months from today, after adjusting the amount which has already been paid to respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 under the interim order of this Court. In case of delay in payment by the petitioner as ordered above, interest at the rate of 6% will be charged against the petitioner.
15. The writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
