U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs State of U.P. and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—The Petitioner-employers aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad dated 18th September, 1984, passed in Adjudication Case No. 6 of 1983, have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

The following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication:

other language

After receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to both the employers as well as the employee-workman, who have put in appearance and filed written statements and rejoinder-affidavits and also adduced evidence. The case set up by the Petitioner-workman in short is that he was employed by the employers in July, 1973, as conductor in the city bus service and he has worked continuously from July, 1973 upto 24th February, 1976. The workman further stated that the employers have illegally terminated his services with effect from 24th February, 1976, after giving one month notice. The workman concerned has not been given any compensation for retrenchment. It has been further stated by the workman that the employees who were subsequently recruited by the employers, were juniors to the workman, are still continuing in service. The employers have not levelled any charge against the workman concerned.

As against the aforesaid case set by the workman concerned, the employers have set up the case that the workman was appointed on purely temporary basis on 2nd January, 1976 and his services could have been terminated even without assigning any reason after giving one month notice. The employers have further stated that since the workman concerned has worked contrary to the rules of department, therefore, the employers have lost their confidence and have terminated the services of the workman concerned in terms of the letter of appointment by the order dated 24th February, 1976, after giving one month pay in lieu thereof.

Both the parties have adduced evidence before the Labour Court and the Labour Court after considering the evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the services of the workman concerned by the employers is retrenchment within the meaning of the word used under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ''Act'') and since the employers admittedly have not complied with the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, the termination is illegal and void. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages of the workman concerned. It is this award, which has been challenged by the Petitioner-employers by means of present writ petition.

Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-employers tried to assail the findings arrived at by the Labour Court with regard to the matter that the employers could have terminated the services of the workman after giving one month notice because the workman concerned was temporary and in terms of the contract of employment, his services could have been terminated by giving one month''s notice or wages in lieu thereof, but in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Sri Sharma thereafter submitted that since the employers have set up the case that the employers have lost the confidence against the workman concerned, therefore, the workman should not be thrust upon the employers and no reinstatement should be granted by the Labour Court and this matter has not been considered by the Labour Court, in view of this, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Labour Court. As already stated above, since the termination have taken place in the year 1976, the matter has been referred to the Labour Court in the year 1982 and the Labour Court has given the award in the year 1984, I do not think it expedient in the interest of justice that the matter now should be remanded back to the Labour Court.

It is not disputed as held by the Labour Court that the workman concerned was a temporary hand. It is also not disputed, nor a finding has been recorded to the contrary by the Labour Court that the workman concerned has become a workman on whom employers have lost their confidence. In this view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court requires to be upheld, except after modification that the workman concerned shall not be entitled for any back wages, particularly in view of the recent pronouncement by the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court tries to make the distinction between the regular employees and the daily wagers, which says that the daily wagers were entitled to minimum wages but not the full wages, like the regular staff, as the daily wagers could not be held to hold the post. In this view of the matter, except for what has already been paid under the modified interim order by this Court, the workman concerned shall not be entitled for any back wages and so far as the reinstatement is concerned, since the employers have lost their confidence against the workman concerned, the employers are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) only apart from as already been paid under the interim order as compensation in lieu of the reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly.

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed in part. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly.