Ram Prem vs Deputy Director Animal Husbandry ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4581 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) 2989 of 2018

Ram Prem                             .................Petitioner

                        -versus-

Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and Wool Research Centre
Dehradun and others
                                        .........Respondents


            Writ Petition (M/S) 2991 of 2018

                          With
Bhagwati Prasad                      .................Petitioner

                        -versus-

Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and Wool Research Centre
Dehradun and others
                                        .........Respondents


                         With

            Writ Petition (M/S) 2992 of 2018

Prakash Kumar                        .................Petitioner

                        -versus-

Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and Wool Research Centre
and others
                                      .........Respondents

                         And

            Writ Petition (M/S) 2994 of 2018

Mohan                                .................Petitioner

                        -versus-
                               -2-




Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and Wool Research Centre
and others
                                        .........Respondents


        Date of hearing and Order : 16.11.2021


Advocates appeared in the case:-

For Appellant       : Mr.       Pankaj    Miglani,     learned
counsel for the petitioner


For Respondents    : Mr.    Devesh Ghildiyal, learned
Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, leaned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners being the workmen, as daily-wagers, working under the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Wool Research Centre, Pashulok, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, have assailed the different Judgments passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in, Adjudication No. 09 of 2014, dated 20.07.2018; Adjudication Case No. 11 of 2014, dated 20.07.2018; Adjudication Case No. 105 of 2011, dated 20.07.2018; and Adjudication Case No. 10 of 2014, dated 20.07.2018. The industrial disputes were referred by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, vide Reference Orders No. 4172-78/D.Dun-CP/16/2013 dated 21.08.2014; 4142-48/D.Dun-CP/14/2013 dated 21.08.2014;

1376-82/D.Dun-CP/20/2010 dated 09.03.2011; 4119-25/D.Dun-CP/15/2013 dated 21.08.2014 respectively; in respect of the Industrial Disputes said to be existed between the workmen and the Management to the effect:

"Whether termination of service of Mr. Ram Prem, Daily Wages Workman, S/o Mr. Mitthu Prasad by employers from 16.12.2008 is proper and/or legal? If no, then workman is entitled to which benefit/relief from the employers and with which description?"

"Whether termination of service of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, Daily Wages Worker, S/o Late Mr. Kanti Ram by employers from 22.12.2007 is proper and/or legal? If no, then workman is entitled to which benefit/relief from the employers and with which description?"

"Whether termination of service of Mr. Prakash Kumar, Daily Wages Worker, S/o Mr. Ramcharan by employers from 16.12.2008 is proper and/or legal? If no, then workman is entitled to which benefit/relief from the employers and with which description?"

and "Whether termination of service of Mr. Mohan, Daily Wages Worker, S/o Mr. Ram Prasad by employers from 16.12.2008 is proper and/or legal? If no, then workman is entitled to which benefit/relief from the employers and with which description?"

3. The workmen, in this case put in their statement of claim and the Management also filed their written statements. In course of inquiry, the learned Presiding Officer took evidences from both the sides and also relied upon several documentary evidences. At paragraph 6 & 7 of the order impugned, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that it was for the employer to prove that the workman was given one month's notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation, when he was terminated from service. On perusal of the file, it further reveals that the employers witness in this affidavit stated that the workmen on completion of work there is no requirement for their continuance, was paid one month's advance their daily wages and after receiving the amount he went his own. Learned Presiding Officer, therefore, held that it is an admitted fact in evidence by the employer that in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, compensation was not paid to the workmen. Hence, it was made clear that one month's notice can only be avoided on payment of compensation that is required to be paid. Regarding the employment of the workman at paragraph 13, the learned Presiding Officer took taken into consideration the fact that the affidavit filed by the workman to the effect that he was appointed in the establishment of the employers in the February, 1987, as a daily worker but the employer's witness Harbir Singh in his affidavit has stated that the workman was employed in the year 1993 as per requirement as a daily worker. Hence, the court held

that there is difference in the statement of both, the employer and of workers, hence it could not be out of reach to mention that workmen did not cross- examined the employer's witness on the years of appointment. Apart from the workmen while page no. 14B(ii) filed paper no.5 an application dated 03.10.2017, addressed to the Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Department, Uttarakhand requesting him to regularise the applicants, there appears name of Ram Prem in the aforesaid application. Ram Prem is shown to work form 1993, therefore, as per the evidence and the materials available on record and above discussion, the workman worked from 1993 in the establishment of the employer.

4. From the above, it is apparent that there is no dispute from the side of employer that the petitioner was working in their establishment as a daily wager 1993 till the date of termination i.e. 16.12.2018. In the meantime he has rendered services as a daily wagers to his employers for about 13 to 14 years. The matter came before the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department of Uttarakhand, who directed to consider their case, and while considering their case, the opposite party/employer retrenched their posts holding that their services are no more in requirement. In that view of the matter, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that as the retrenchment order without payment of compensation as per Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the order is illegal but he took into consideration several judgements of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that in such cases reinstatement in service with full wages is not expedient. Hence, he awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, to be paid to the appellants as compensation in lieu of the reengagement because of illegal termination/retrenchment.

5. This court is of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate as the petitioners have worked for the department of Animal and Husbandry for almost 13 to 14 years, and in such situations, in stead of reinstating them with full back wages, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid to each of them as compensation for illegal retrenchment.

6. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The final order of awarding compensation is 2 lakhs only within three months to the petitioners, failing which, to pay a simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum is hereby modified. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioners within three months from the date of this Order along with a simple interest of 6 % per annum from the date of initiation of the industrial dispute i.e. 21.08.2014. If the payment is not made within three months stipulated, then the amount of the compensation shall carry a penal interest of 9% from the aforesaid date.

7. With such observations, all the writ petitions are allowed.

8. There shall be no order as to the costs.

9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

KKS