Allahabad High Court
M/S Aneja Printers vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 April, 2023
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 75232 of 2005 Petitioner :- M/S Aneja Printers Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Y.K. Sinha,Alok Kumar Srivastava,S.S. Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,O.P.Rai Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri O.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for workman/respondent no. 3.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the award dated 30.06.2005 passed in Adjudication Case No. 639 of 1993.
According to petitioner, the services of the workman/respondent no. 3 was engaged from 01.01.1983 and was retrenched from 17.06.1992. According to petitioner, the workman had not worked for nine years and the reference made by the State Government and the award made by the Labour Court is unsustainable in the eye of law.
According to petitioner counsel, the award made on the strength of non-compliance of Rule 42 does not hold ground in view of judgement of Apex Court rendered in case of Manju Saxena vs. Union of India and another, 2019 (2) SCC 628. According to him, Rule 42 is not mandatory. However, the employer had given notice on 15.06.1992 and an amount of Rs.6500/- was paid and thus the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was complied with. He then contended that the workman was gainfully employed during the period the matter was pending before the Labour Court and the award made by the Labour Court granting back wages was against the provisions of law. He next contended that at present the age of the workman is about 59-60 years.
Sri O.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the workman was employed on 02.06.1982 and not on 01.01.1983. There is no denial in the written statement filed by the employer before the Labour Court and the finding arrived by Labour Court is that the workman had worked for more than nine years. However, he fairly submitted that petitioner unit has been closed down and the workman is about 59-60 years of age and due to interim order operating in the writ petition, he was not reinstated in service.
Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the workman has almost attained the age of superannuation and is nearing 60 years. The award cannot be implemented as the unit has already been closed which is admitted to respondents.
In the interest of justice, this Court directs the petitioner/employer to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation to respondent no. 3/ workman within one month from today. The proposal made by the Court for granting Rs.1 lac compensation is not opposed by counsel appearing for workman.
In view of above, the award dated 30.06.2005 is modified to such extent.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023 V.S.Singh