Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Saini vs Presiding Officer, ... on 9 August, 2010
Author: Devendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Devendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46724 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sanjay Saini Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- P.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against an award dated 12.3.2010 by which a reference with regard to alleged disengagement has been answered against the petitioner workman.
It appears that the petitioner caused a Industrial Dispute No. 35 of 2003 by which the Central Government has referred the matter to the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the legality of his alleged disengagement dated 18.6.2001 from the post of Messenger in the respondent Bank.
The case set up by the petitioner was that he was appointed on 2.5.1994 as a Messenger in the respondent-Bank on a consolidated salary of Rs.500/- per month and he was performing all types of works including that of Messenger and was also asked to write day book etc. and though he had worked 240 days in a year but he was not given the salary of the Messenger for which he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner which annoyed the Management and therefore he was disengaged with effect from 18.6.2001. The respondent-Bank objected to the claim of the petitioner with the allegation that he was never appointed on 2.5.1994 by the Management either as a Messenger or in any other capacity and he was never paid Rs.500/- as salary from the respondent-Bank and he never worked as a Messenger or in other capacity. It was further stated that he was working in a canteen run by Local Implementation Committee. It was further asserted that neither the canteen is recognized by the Bank nor has more than 100 employees and the canteen is neither controlled by the Bank and the engagement by the canteen is not governed by any rules framed by the Bank.
After the parties led their respective evidence, the Labour Court, relying upon the statement of the petitioner, has held that he was an employee of the canteen and the remuneration was also paid by the canteen and the Bank has no concern with the canteen or its employees and in fact, there was no post of Messenger or any permanent post in the canteen and he did not work in the Bank for 240 days. These findings of fact are not shown to be erroneous.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010 AU