Bata India Ltd. and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against the award dated 24.12.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether action of Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman salesman-Respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 22.03.1994 was just and valid or not? According to the workman he was appointed on 1.8.1987 and was posted at Allahabad Civil Lines Branch of the Petitioner, that he fell ill from 13.3.1994 to 21.3.1994 and was under treatment of E.S.I. Doctor, however, when he reported on duty on 22.3.1994 he was not permitted to resume duty and was orally told that his services had been terminated. The workman immediately complained to Deputy Labour Commissioner through application dated 24.3.1994. It was further contended by the workman that no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The employer contended that the workman worked from 31.4.1992 to 11.3.1994. It was further contended that often workmen were engaged on daily basis due to exigency of work and the Respondent No. 3 was also engaged as such.

The Industrial Tribunal through the impugned award directed reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Even daily wagers are entitled to the protection of Section 6N of U.P. I.D. Act. It was admitted by the employer Petitioner that the workman had continuously worked from 31.03.1992 to 11.03.1994 (about 2 years). The absence was only of 8 or 9 days. According to the workman he had fallen ill. Even if this version is not believed still for absence of 8 days services can not be terminated vide Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singh AIR 2008 S.C. (Supp) 1591 and Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India AIR 2008 S.C. (Supp) 1817 and Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Surender AIR 2009 S.C. (Supp) 622. Moreover absence is misconduct hence domestic inquiry should have been held.

Accordingly, I do not find any error in the direction of reinstatement given by the Industrial Tribunal and the same is approved.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that very little work is left with the branch of the Petitioner where Respondent workman is working.

It is admitted to both the parties that since 2009 workman is working with the Petitioner. It is further admitted that under interim order passed by this Court on 10.12.1998 Petitioner was paid about Rs. 2000/-per month in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act till he was taken back in job. The interim order is quoted below:

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The validity of the award made under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. A fine point of controversy has been raised requiring scrutiny by this Court.

Issue notice to the Respondent No. 3 for which steps shall be taken, in accordance with provisions contained in the Rules of Court, within one week Respondents be called upon to file counter affidavit within four weeks. List thereafter.

In the meantime, the enforcement of the impugned award dt. 24.12.1997 (Annexure 3) shall remain stayed provided:

1 the back wages to the extent of 50 per cent payable under the award are deposited with the industrial tribunal within two months from today;

a sum equal to wages payable to the workman from the date of the award till the last preceding month is paid to the Respondent workman within two months from today; and,

wages at the rate admissible u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the succeeding months shall be paid to the Respondent workman, month by month basis, till further orders of this Court.

The back wages so deposited, in terms of this order, shall be invested in some Nationalised Bank by the Industrial Tribunal under an interest earning term deposit scheme.

In the even of default in complying with any of the aforementioned conditions, the present stay order shall automatically come to an end.

In the impugned award the Tribunal itself held that the workman failed to prove that he was not working for gain any where it was for this reason that the Industrial Tribunal awarded 50% backwages since the date of termination i.e. 22.3.1994 till the date of award i.e. 24.12.1997 (3 years 9 months). The back wages awarded by the impugned award, payable till the workman was taken back in service in 2009 are reduced to the actual amount payable/paid under interim order dated 10.12.1998 passed in this writ petition.

If due to reduction in work or any other reason Petitioners are entitled to retrench the workman Respondent then they may proceed in accordance with law.

The impugned award is modified to the above extent.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.