Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another vs Prem Chandra And Another on 7 January, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
Reserved Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 588 of 2012
State of U.P. & another ....Petitioners
Versus
Prem Chandra & another .... Respondents
Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./petitioners.
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.2.
Judgment Reserved - 08.12.2016
Date of Judgment - 07.01.2017
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
The present petition is instituted against the award dated 05.11.2009, rendered by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No.249 of 2009 (Old Adjudication Case No.26 of 2007). It was published on 06.04.2011.
2. "Key facts" necessary for adjudication of this petition are that respondent no.1 was engaged as Beldar/Chaukidar on 01.08.1985. He worked continuously upto 30.04.1987. He was retrenched without following the due process of law on 30.04.1987. He raised the industrial dispute. The workman filed a claim petition. Learned Labour Court answer the reference in favour of workman/respondent no.1. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The workman was engaged, as noticed hereinabove, on 01.08.1985. He was retrenched on 30.04.1987. He has worked continuously for 240 days' in a block of 12 calendar months.
5. The workman has appeared as witness before the Labour Court. According to him, he has worked for 240 days' continuously. He was neither issued 2 any notice nor paid compensation. The statement made by the workman was not rebutted. Since he had completed 240 days', hence, he could not be retrenched without issuing notice and payment of compensation. The workman has also been issued an experience certificate on 03.02.1992 by the competent authority.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute. However, the fact of the matter is that the employer has not challenged the reference made by the State Government. Moreover, the question of delay can be seen at the time of molding the relief.
7. The workman ought to have been issued a notice and paid compensation under Section 6 (N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the time of his retrenchment. The retrenchment of the workman is void-ab-initio.
9. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the award made by the Labour Court after appraisal of entire evidence brought on record is limited.
10. There is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 17.08.2009. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.) NISHANT