Bijli Cotton Mills vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and others

S.U. Khan, J.—List revised.

No one appears for workmen respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-employer.

This writ petition is directed against the award dated 4.10.1990 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra, in abdication case No. 124 of 1985. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of the petitioner employer terminating the service of its workman respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Ali Mohammad and Nabi Rasool w.e.f. 16.8.1984 and 6.8.1984 was just and legal or not.

It was argued before the labour Court that petitioner''s establishment was a unit of National Textile Corporation, U.P., Kanpur, hence it was covered by I D. Act and not U.P.I.D. Act. Reference was made by Government of Uttar Pradesh u/s 4-K of U.P.I.D. Act.

Labour Court held that both the workmen were permanent workmen. They performed duties on such machine which were permanently in use. Labour Court further found that both the workmen had worked for about 3 years, however, appointments were being given to them for one or two months with few days breaks. The Labour Court further found that there was no provision under certified standing orders for such appointments which were given to the workmen concerned. Ultimately, labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages. Through interim order dated 15.4.1991 passed in this writ petition operation of the impugned award was stayed until the further order unconditionally.

In the award it was held that for the last time Ali Mohammad was appointed for the period from 15.7.1984 to 14.8.1984 and Nabi Rasool was appointed from 4.7.1984 to 5.8 1984.

By virtue of definition of retrenchment given u/s 2(oo)(bb) of industrial Disputes Act, non-renewal of contract of employment does not amount to retrenchment.

Moreover petitioner''s concern is a unit of National Textile Corporation, U.P. hence U.P.I.D. Act was not applicable and reference u/s 4-K of U.P I.D Act was also bad. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two authorities of this Court. One was delivered by Hon''ble Ashok Bhushan, J. in Writ Petition No. 45538 of 2003, National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Limited and another v. State of U.P. and others decided on 14.9.2004. The other has been delivered by Hon''ble Dilip Gupta, J. in Writ Petition No. 18697 of 1985, M/s. Bijli Cotton Mills v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court. U.P. Bareilly and others decided on 20.7.2007. In both these judgments, it has been held that in case of disputes in between National-Textile Corporation or its units and its employees, the appropriate Government is Central Government and not State Government, hence reference made by State Government u/s 4-K of U.P.I.D. Act is not maintainable.

Moreover, when appointment was held to be not in conformity with certified standing orders, thereafter it could not be held that the appointment was of permanent nature.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, impugned award is set aside.