Allahabad High Court
M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 March, 2023
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9244 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himadari Batra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shekhar Srivastava Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, workman.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Labour Court, NOIDA, Gautam Buddha Nagar holding that the workman was terminated on 12.05.2009. Earlier the matter had come up to this Court through Writ-C No. 12239 of 2021 assailing the order dated 18.11.2019. This Court while disposing of the matter on 12.08.2021 had directed the parties to lead their evidence and Labour Court was to decide issue in regard to validity of the reference which was pending. The Court had also found that the issue in regard to the dispute which has been raised as to whether the services of the workman had come to an end on 12.05.2009 or w.e.f. 21.04.2010. Pursuant to remand, the Presiding Officer in order impugned held that the services of the workman was terminated by earlier order dated 12.05.2009.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite specific direction of this Court, the court below has not recorded any finding as to how it has arrived at the finding that termination order was dated 12.05.2009 and not 21.04.2010 though there was material on record which was not considered and simply on the oral testimony of the workman, the court below had proceeded to pass the order.
Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submitted that the against the earlier order dated 18.11.2019, a review application was filed by petitioner before the Labour Court which was also dismissed but the said order was never challenged in the earlier round of proceedings initiated by petitioner in the year 2021 nor the said fact was disclosed by petitioner before this Court. It is during second round of proceedings that said fact has come up. He then submitted that the order dated 18.11.2019 had merged with the order passed on review application and thus the petitioners had no locus to challenge the order dated 18.11.2019 through Writ-C No. 12239 of 2021. He fairly accepted the fact that the Labour Court should have recorded a better finding before arriving that the termination order was dated 12.05.2009 and not 21.04.2010 as there was documentary material on record.
I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It is an admitted case that reference which has been made to the Labour Court is still pending and there were two issues raised which are whether the employer had violated the principles of natural justice in domestic inquiry, if not, its consequence and secondly as to whether on 12.05.2009, industrial dispute existed inter se parties.
This Court on 12.08.2021 had required the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether an industrial dispute existed on 12.05.2009 while making an award. The order dated 03.02.2023 has been passed only on the oral testimony of the workman and the other documents which are part of the record were not considered before arriving at such finding. It was incumbent upon Labour Court to have considered all the material filed by the employer and workman before arriving at the finding as to the fact whether any industrial dispute existed on 12.05.2009 or not.
I find that the Labour Court while passing the order dated 03.02.2023 had not considered the material which was before it and in a cryptic manner had proceeded to hold that services of the workman were terminated by order dated 12.05.2009.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order dated 03.02.2023 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside.
Writ petition succeeds and is hereby partly allowed.
The matter is remitted back to Labour Court to decide the issue no. 2 afresh after hearing both the parties and considering all the material which are available on record expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order as the matter is very old.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023 V.S.Singh