Saligram Gupta vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Kanpur and another

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me vide order dated 3.7.2003 for the reasons to be recorded latter on. Now, here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

The petitionerworkman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 30th January, 1993 passed in adjudication case No. 25 of 1991, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure''4'' to the writ petition.

The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

After receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to the parties and the parties concerned have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence. In short, the case set up by workman Saligram Gupta was that he was employed at Jhansi Depot ''of the employers with effect from 29th December, 1973 and has worked continuously up to 9th December, 1974 when he was retrenched, but no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. it is further stated that he has been retrenched when he demanded regularisation of his services due to which the officers were annoyed. The workman has further stated that in the year 1980 several drivers were recruited by the employers, but they have not called the workman for reemployment. He further stated that the employers have violated the provisions of Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He, therefore, claimed that he should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and the order dated 9th December, 1974 be set aside.

As would be clear from the dates mentioned above that according to the case set up by the workman concerned he was retrenched by the order dated 9th December, 1974, but he raised the dispute only in the year 1990. The employers, therefore, have set up the defence that the claim of the workman has become State because of the laps of the time. The employers have stated that the services of Saligram Gupta, the workman concerned as temporary driver were terminated on 9th December, 1974 because according to the conditions under which he was recruited he was to pass the written examination and was further to be selected by the selection committee. The workman concerned appeared, but could not pass the written examination, nor he was selected by the committee. It is further stated that the workman did not possess the requisite educational qualification. It is also brought to the notice of the Labour Court that before the present reference, another reference, which was made in the year 1989. was decided in favour of the employers. The employers have denied the case set up by the workman and stated that no person like the present workman was recruited and that no person junior to the present workman is working in their employment. In this view of the matter, the workman concerned is not entitled for any relief and the reference is not maintainable and is liable to be answered against the workman.

A perusal of the referring order will demonstrate that it proceeds on the assumption that the retrenchment of the workman concerned was valid and it is only the action/inaction on the part of the employers in not taking back the workman concerned in the employment that has been referred to for adjudication. Thus, the Labour Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the present case is not a case, which is covered by Section 6Q of the Act and therefore, the workman cannot be permitted to raise this point at this stage. So far as not inviting the workman concerned for reemployment is concerned, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that no person junior to the workman concerned has either been recruited, or is working. It is also a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that the workman concerned is not eligible as he has not been able to pass the written examination and that he has not possessed the requisite educational qualification. The workman concerned has relied upon rcgularisation of the employees by the employers in the year 1980. To this, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that since on that date the workman concerned was not in the employment, therefore, he is not entitled for regulansation. The Labour Court has also recorded finding that the workman has failed to demonstrate that in the preceding calendar 12 months, the workman has worked for 240 days. The Labour Court thus arrived at the conclusion that the case of retrenchment is not made out. In my opinion, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to undergo this exercise in view of the reference made by the referring authority. With regard to the reference made, the Labour Court has recorded categorical finding, which learned Counsel for the petitionerworkman, has not been able to dispute, nor learned Counsel for the petitioner is in a position to demonstrate that these findings either suffer from the manifest error of law, or ate otherwise perverse. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the view taken by the Labour Court. Thus, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall their own costs.