Allahabad High Court
Shakumbhari Sugar And Allied ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner, Vinai ... on 11 May, 2005
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri A. K. Mishra Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Miss Bushra Maryam Advocate, on behalf of respondents.
2. M/s Shakumbhari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. Todarpur, district Saharanpur is an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner Saharanpur under Section 6-H(l) of the Act dated 24.12.2004 whereby the Labour Court has determined a sum of Rs.31,333.50 paisa as the money payable to the workman for the period between May, 2002 to February, 2003 as retaining allowance and salary. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:--
3. The State Government vide notification 04.08.1998 referred the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-workman D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed dh fou; dqekj R;kxh iq= Jh jkt dqekj R;kxh dh isjkbZ lu 1997&98 ds izkjEHk gksus dh frfFk ls lsok,a lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed fgryke @ vuqrksi fiyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k o frfFk lfgrA for adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 158 of l-9998 and was decided vide award dated 20.09.1999. The operative portion of the said award is as follows:
^^vr% eSa ;g vfHkf.u.kZ; nsrk gwa fd ;g ekeyk 1997&98 iSjkbZ l= ds vkjEHk gksus ij Jfed fou; dqekj R;kxh dh lsok lekfIr dk ekeyk ugha gS ijUrq ;g funsZ'k nsrk gwa fd lsok;kstd mls ekuuh;
mPPre U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ; esa fn, x, funsZ'kkuqlkj vxys iSjkbZ l= ds izkjEHk ls dk;Z ij cqyk;s o fiNys iSjkbZ l=ksa esa dke ij u cqyk;s tkus ds ,ot esa #- 5000@& #i;k ikap gtkj eqvkotk o 5]500@& okn O;; nsaA**
4. Since the employers failed to carry out the award of the Labour Court, as aforesaid an application was filed by.workman for payment of wages strictly in accordance with the award of the Labour Court. The Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of the period between November, 2000 to April, 2002 determined the wages as Rs. 70,635.00 payable to the workman. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38297 of 2002 and the Hon'ble High Court on 11.09.2002 passed an interim order whereby recovery of the amount under order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner was stayed. For the subsequent period i.e. from May, 2002 to February, 2003 the workman filed another application on the same grounds. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by means of order dated 24.12.2004 computed Rs.3l,333.50 paisa as money payable to the workman in exercise of powers under Section 6-H(i) of the Act. This subsequent order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner has been challenged by the employers by means of Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 3022 of 2005.
5. In support of both the writ petitions common contentions have been raised by the employers which have been replied on behalf of the workman and as such both the writ petitions are being decided by means of a common judgment.
6. On behalf of the employers it is contended that that under the award of the Labour Court dated 20.09.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No. 158 of 1998 the workman was entitled for the reliefs as per the judgment of, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 332, the relevant portion whereof was recorded in the award itself and which reads as follows:
"The question is whether such an action would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work the respondent cannot be said to have been retrenched in view, of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section (OO) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal. However the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondent normally live land if they would for duty the appellant would : engage them in accordance with seniority and exitency of work. "
7. It is therefore, contended that the workman was entitled to be employed in new season provided he reports for duty and the appointment was to be offered in Order of seniority and exigency of work. It is submitted that there was no requirement of extra work and further no person junior to the workman was appointed and as such no relief could be granted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (i) of the Act. Therefore, the entire order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was wholly without jurisdiction.
8. On behalf of respondents it is. contended that before the Labour Court the petitioners had not raised any dispute with regard to the manner in which the seniority is to be counted. The employers did not assert that any seniority list as was required was prepared nor did they produce any register in respect of similarly situated workmen engaged during various seasons, nor did they maintain any register in respect of the workmen engaged during various seasons on the basis whereof they could allege that no person junior to the workman has been engaged. The employers have not made any publication in the neighbouring areas for the purposes of engagement at the start of the season. It is, therefore, contended that the employers have failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1986 Supreme Court 322 as a result whereof there was manifest non-compliance of the award of the Labour Court in favour of the workman dated 20.09.1999 and therefore the Labour Court was justified in computing the money payable to the workman.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petitions including the pleadings of the parties before the Labour Court as well as the award of the Labour Court dated 20.09.1999.
10. From the record it is apparent that the employers have failed to maintain any register in respect of the workmen engaged; during seasons nor they have made publication in the neighbouring as required in the judgment of the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court(Supra) before offering the employment, nor they have produced. such evidence in the present writ proceedings. I Thus the employers have miserably failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and have consequently failed to carry out the award of the Labour Court dated 20.09.1999. The Labour Court as such was justified in computing the money payable to the workman in terms of the award. There is no illegality of infirmity in the order dated 20.09.1999 or in the order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 6-H(l)of the Act. .
11. In view of the aforesaid both the writ petitions are dismissed.