WPMS/2646/2014
2024 Latest Caselaw 2514 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2646/2014 on 4 November, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2024:UHC:8104
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS No. 2646 of 2014
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.

                                    Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate,
                               holding brief of Mr. Akshay Pradhan,
                               Advocate for the petitioner.

                               2. Mr.    Yogesh         Chandra  Tiwari,
                               Standing Counsel        for the State of
                               Uttarakhand.

                               3. Mr. Piyush Garg,          Advocate         for
                               respondent no. 1.

4. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.10.2012, rendered by learned Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 82 of 2005. By the said award, termination of service of respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 02.07.2004 was declared to be unjust and illegal with a direction to the employer (petitioner) to reinstate him with 50% back-wages.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 was employed with the petitioner w.e.f. 10.08.1984 and his services were terminated without any prior notice or retrenchment compensation, w.e.f. 02.07.2004. Respondent no. 1 raised industrial dispute against his termination, which was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court, Dehradun, vide order dated 20.12.2004. English Translation of the reference order is as follows:-

2024:UHC:8104

Whether termination of service of workman Sri V.D. Dhasmana by the employer w.e.f. 02.07.2004 is justified/ or legal? If not, then to what benefits the workman concerned is entitled to, with other particulars?

6. Employer/petitioner filed written statement contending that respondent no. 1 is not a workman; he has attained age of superannuation, therefore, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement; respondent no. 1 voluntarily abandoned his employment, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from the Labour Court.

7. Learned Labour Court after considering material on record returned the finding that respondent no. 1 is a workman. The contention that respondent no. 1 voluntarily abandoned employment was not accepted by learned Labour Court, and it was held that since his services were terminated in violation of provisions contained in Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back-wages.

8. Regarding the plea that respondent no. 1 has attained age of superannuation, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in service, learned Labour Court has held that in the absence of any provision in the statute/contract of employment to show that the respondent no. 1 was to retire at a particular age, the said plea cannot be accepted. Reliance was placed on judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Vs. National Textile 2024:UHC:8104

Corporation Ltd., (1988) SCC Online All 428 and Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Ramaratnam v. Labour Court and others, (2002) SCC Online Mad 901, wherein it was held that unless age/date of superannuation is specified in the appointment order, an employee in private employment can continue to serve till he is physically and mentally fit.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that award given by learned Labour Court is erroneous, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

10. Law is well settled that while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court do not sit as court of appeal and every error of law and fact cannot be corrected in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat vij Company limited and another, (2014) 6 SCC 434.

11. Since learned Labour Court has returned findings of fact, which are based on evidence on record, therefore, this Court while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not inclined to interfere with such findings of fact. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

12. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.) 04.11.2024 Navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

NAVEEN CHANDRA 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86D AAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2024.11.07 10:38:08 +05'30'