State of U.P. and Others vs Bindeshwari Nath Pandey and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri G.P. Singh who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

This employers'' writ petition is directed against the award of the labour court, Gorakhpur, dated 28th January, 1989 in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1989. The following dispute was referred to the labour court:

Kya sewayojakon dwara apne shramik Bindeshwari Nath Pandey, Thooth Lipik, Putra Shri Ram Sumer Pandey ki sewayen dinank 1.10.1982 se samapt kiya jana uchit tatha/athawa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahin to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/ anutosh pane ka adhikari hai, evam anya kis vivran sahit?

The labour court on receipt of reference issued notice to the Petitioner as well as workman concerned. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced their evidence.

In short the case set up by the Petitioner employer is that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as daily wager on the basis of availability of work and particularly worked in the session 1982-83 and his services were not terminated but because there was no work of daily wager, his engagement came to an end.

The workman concerned has set up a case that he has been working in the session 1975-76 and worked continuously till 1982-83. His services were terminated from 1st October, 1982. It is also contended that while terminating the services of the workman concerned, provision of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with. No notice, as contemplated under the said Act has been issued to the workman concerned.

The labour court recorded a finding that the workman concerned was terminated with effect from 1st October, 1982, without complying the provision of Section 6N. Therefore, directed reinstatement of workman concerned with continuity in service and the back wages. These findings of the labour court has been assailed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners but I do not find any error in these findings which are based on material on the record. In this view of the matter the award of the labour court does not warrant any interference.

Lastly it is submitted that admittedly the workman has not worked since 1st October, 1982 and back wages for the said period is not justified. In this view of the matter the award of the labour court, so far as back wages are concerned deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed in view of the decision in Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another, . The award of the labour court is modified to the extent that the workman concerned shall be entitled to get half wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement.

With the aforesaid modification this writ petition is dismissed.