Allahabad High Court
Executive Engineer,Vi C.D.,U.P.Jal ... vs Presiding Officer,I.T.(1),U.P.At ... on 16 July, 2010
Author: Krishna Murari
Bench: Krishna Murari
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11236 of 1995 Petitioner :- Executive Engineer,Vi C.D.,U.P.Jal Nigam,Allahabad Respondent :- Presiding Officer,I.T.(1),U.P.At Allahabad & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Smt.Poonam Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,A.K.Srivastava Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is directed against the award passed by the labour court reinstating the petitioner back in service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.
The facts are that respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Ledger Poster (Clerk) on 4.6.1988. The employer-petitioner has wrongly and illegally terminated his services vide order dated 17.3.1993. Industrial dispute was raised whether the termination order dated 17.3.1993 is legal and valid and if not to what relief workman is entitled.
Prescribed Authority - labour court finding that services of workman have been terminated on the ground that he has absented himself from duty since September, 1991 and this fact was recorded in the order dated 17.3.1993 which has been filed as Exhibit W-4 in the proceedings and the said order was passed without notice or opportunity and was in violation of principles of natural justice held it to be illegal and invalid.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was only a muster roll employee as such even if his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he is entitled to retrenchment compensation and not reinstatement in service.
Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a decision of Hon'ble single Judge in the case of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U. P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad and another 2008 Labour & Industrial Cases - 216, wherein it has been held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to a daily wage employee/muster roll employee cannot be granted and he is only entitled for retrenchment compensation with interest. He also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nepal Singh Vs. Nideshak, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and others - 2006 (2) UPLBEC - 1408, wherein it has been held that daily wage employee has no right to the post. However, in the present case, from the pleadings before the labour court it does not appear that either of the parties have set up that he was a muster roll employee. In view of the above, both the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application the present facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the finding recorded by the labour court that termination order was passed being in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity was afforded, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010 Dcs