State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer and Nepal Singh

B.S. Verma, J.—This writ petition has been preferred to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 14-2-1997 (Annexure No. 10) whereby the learned Labour Court has ordered that the workman be reinstated in service with 25% back wages and cost of Rs. 200/-.

The services of workman Nepal Singh, who was engaged in service as Beldar from 1-4-1990, were terminated on 15-5-1992 without any prior intimation or notice. Therefore, the industrial dispute was raised for adjudication of the Labour Court. The employer in its written statement admitted that the workman remained employed for 250 days but denied that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. According to the employer, by Government Order dated 6-5-1992, the muster roll workers having less than 240 days were liable to be terminated with immediate effect.

Before the Labour Court, the employers filed copies of muster rolls. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and he was entitled to get the retrenchment compensation u/s 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court therefore held that the compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the said Act were mandatory and for want of the same, the order of termination of services became illegal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record including the impugned award.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the workman were terminated in view of the Government Order dated 6-5-1992, which provided that workmen with less than 240 days attendance were liable to be terminated.

I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Labour Court has categorically given a finding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was also held that the workman was entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of the said Act. It is settled law that the Government Order cannot override the provisions of the Act. The impugned award is fully supported by the evidence led by the employer. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned award. The Labour Court while ordering reinstatement of the workman has awarded 25% back wages. The order impugned is just and proper.

It is also pertinent to mention that in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence. The scope of writ jurisdiction is limited. Only perversity in the impugned orders can be examined. I am fortified in my view by the Apex Court verdict in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, .

The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year on the basis of the muster rolls filed by the employer. The labour court has also found that the workman was entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Having considered the entire material on record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned award. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that the Government Order cannot override the Act. The impugned award is fully based on the evidence led by the parties. The reinstatement of workman with 25% back-wages is a justified order, as passed by the Labour court, and the same does not call for any interference in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright.

The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.

The interim order dated 27-3-1998 is vacated.

All applications stand disposed of.