U.P. State Electricity Board and Another vs Panchhi Lal and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the U. P. State Electricity Board, the employer-petitioner, challenges the award of the Labour Court IV, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, dated 12th March, 1995, passed in Adjudication Case No. 256 of 1989.

The following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication :

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh iaNh yky pkyd iq= Jh lq[knso dks fnukad 6-1-987 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS \\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh D;k fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr \\**

Parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence before the labour court. The case set up by the concerned workman was that he was employed with effect from 6th January, 1986 as driver, to drive School Bus and he has worked up to 5th January, 1987 without there being any complaint regarding his work and conduct and inspite of his work being satisfactory, his services were arbitrarily terminated with effect from 6th January, 1987. No notice, no charge-sheet has ever been served on the concerned workman and the employer have also not complied with the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') inasmuch as though the concerned workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months but he has not been paid any retrenchment compensation.

The employer have set up the case that the concerned workman was employed on different post in the leave vacancy for a fixed period and after expiry of the aforesaid period, his services were automatically terminated. At the moment, when the services of the concerned workman was terminated, there was no vacant post of driver. In this way, the services of the concerned workman were not terminated but it has come to an end automatically. With regard to the concerned workman''s claim that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, the employer has given details. According to that details, the concerned workman has worked for 176 days. Therefore, it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the ''Central Act'', or Section 6N of the Act.

The labour court has discussed the relevant evidence adduced by the concerned workman as well as by the employer and has arrived at the conclusion that between the period of 6th January, 1986 and 5th January, 1987, the concerned workman has worked for 273 days as driver and not 176 days as alleged by the employer.

In this view of the matter, since it is admitted that the services of the concerned workman were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Central Act or Section 6N of the Act is not correct and while terminating the services of the concerned workman, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner-employer to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Section 6N of the Act.

The labour court has also found that the cases relied upon by the employer in Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, , are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In this view of the matter, the labour court has recorded a finding that since the employer has not complied with the provision of Section 6N of the Act and from the evidence on record, it is found by the labour court that the concerned workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, the labour court directed the reinstatement of the concerned workman on the post of driver with continuity of service and fifty percent of the wages from the date of termination till the date of award.

In my opinion, this award does not warrant any interference by this Court as it is covered by finding of fact which this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere as the same are not demonstrated to be suffering from any error of law.

Learned counsel for the concerned workman has relied upon the decision in The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that once the retrenchment has been effected without complying with the provision of Section 25F of the Central Act, it deserves to be set aside and the concerned workman is entitled for full back wages and continuity of service. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the concerned workman is the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sayeed Mohd. and Another, where in the similar circumstance, this Court has refused to set aside the award on the ground that the same is covered by finding of fact. I am not referring the same because the same will simply multiply the situation and the principle is well-settled.

In this view of the matter, the case set up by the employer cannot be accepted and the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No modification in the impugned award is required. Needless to say that the concerned workman will be entitled for the costs. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.