Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sanyogita vs Deputy Labour Commissioner And Another on 17 September, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13964 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Sanyogita Respondent :- Deputy Labour Commissioner And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Pandey appearing for the State.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to second respondent.
Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to first respondent to decide the application dated 14.2.2019 moved by the petitioner for implementation of award in Adjudication Case No.325 of 1999 (Ajab Singh v. Gangeshwar Ltd. Deoband) within stipulated period.
It appears from the record in question that second respondent against the award has preferred Writ-C No.6402 of 2002 (M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. Saharanpur v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was dismissed vide order dated 31.5.2017. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 31.5.2017 is quoted as under:-
"..........I have perused the records of the adjudication case filed alongwith the writ petition and the order of the Labour Court. I find that the workman had not only in his written statement mentioned that he had worked as weighment clerk for the crushing season 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1997-98, but had also produced documentary evidence in the form of authority letters and license issued in this regard as also other supporting evidence like No Dues Certificate and evidence relating to Provident Fund being deducted from his wages.
On the other hand employer in its written statement had merely denied the claim of the workman and said that the workman had never been engaged at all and in its oral evidence of its two officers Randeep Singh and Ravinder Singh also there was a bald denial without any effort to produce any documentary evidence viz. Attendance registers and other relevant material to prove before the Labour Court that the workman had never been engaged as seasonal weighment clerk by them.
Mere assertion that the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the workman of his continuous engagement in the previous crushing season was forged and manipulated would not discharge the burden of proof shifted upon the employer.
In this case, the Labour Court rightly considered all evidence and came to conclusion that the workman had been able to prove and the employer had been unable to disprove the fact of illegal termination of the services of the workman / non-engagement in the crushing season of 1997-1998.
This Court has very limited jurisdiction in so far as Courts' findings of fact is concerned with regard to Labour Court.
The limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution in cases arising out of Industrial Disputes Act is to see whether the claimed arrived at by the Labour Court is without any evidence at all and the findings are perverse i.e. against the material placed on record or there is a apparent illegality in the order of the Labour Court in the sense that it has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the employer without the onus of proof first being discharged by the workman concerned. I am of the considered opinion that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as aforesaid do not apply to the facts of the case, and are clearly distinguishable. The award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
The writ petition is thus dismissed as devoid of merit.
No order as to cost."
Learned counsel for the petitioner apprises to the Court that the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court was subjected to challenge in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21938 of 2017 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, which was disposed of on 1.9.2017 granting liberty to employer to approach the High Court by way of review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement at Bar that to the best of his knowledge till date no review has been filed inspite of leave accorded by Hon'ble the Apex Court nor he has been served any notice in this regard.
In this backdrop, the wife of the deceased workman has preferred aforesaid application under Section 6H (1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which is pending consideration.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the first respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid application in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders specially the contesting respondent, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.9.2020 SP/