U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs Labour Court and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—Several references have been made to the Labour Court, Varanasi, which have been decided by common award dated 12th June, 1997.

In this writ petition, we are concerned with the adjudication award in connection with Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1992. Following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication:

other language

After exchange of the pleadings and after producing the evidence, the labour court has recorded a finding that on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, the case set up by the employer that the workman concerned was not on the muster roll of M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills on the date of acquisition of the mills by the Corporation, cannot be accepted and since that being so no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required by this Court. If that be so, then according to the conditions of acquisition such employees who were on the muster roll of M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills on the date of acquisition, would automatically become employees of the Corporation. The workman concerned, Raman Mishra has also been found on the muster roll of M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills. Therefore, he will be deemed to be an employee of the Corporation on the date of acquisition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Nigam, has submitted that under the conditions of the acquisition in case of any dispute as to whether any particular employee would become employee of the Corporation or not would be decided by the authority contemplated under those Regulations and, therefore, the labour court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in adjudicating upon and holding that the workman concerned is an employee of the Corporation.

It is settled that once the workman concerned is confronted with the termination order and he raises disputes which is referred to the labour court in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Borad and Others, , the labour court cannot go behind the reference ; it has to answer the reference and, therefore, the labour court has not committed any error much less manifest error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this view of the matter, the workman has already completed more than 240 days of service and his services had not been terminated neither by way of any enquiry on the basis of any charge nor the workman was reinstated with continuity of service and this part of the award so far as Raman Mishra is concerned does not require any modification or interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.