Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The respondent no. 2 - Hindalco Workers Union, espoused an industrial dispute regarding termination of services of respondent nos. 3 to 14 alleging that there was a wrongful termination of engagement of respondent no. 3 w.e.f. 18.2.1987 and respondent nos. 4 to 14 w.e.f. 18.3.1987, and adjudication case no. 167 of 1988 was registered in the Labour Court, Varanasi.

6. After exchange of affidavits and also taking of statements of witnesses of the employers and the employees, the adjudication case was dismissed on 18.5.1990. The Hindalco Workers Union challenged the said Award of the Labour Court, Varanasi by filing Writ Petition No. 2958 of 1991.

20. If a workman is terminated for any reason whatsoever, it would amount to retrenchment under Section 2(s) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

21. Two of the respondents, Banarasi Lal and Uma Shanker had given statements on behalf of the respondents that they remained unemployed after their wrongful termination, and therefore the Labour Court rightly allowed reinstatement with back wages.

22. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that in Writ Petition No. 2158 of 1991, this Court had directed the Labour Court to decide the question of unfair labour practice and the direction of this Court was complied with by the respondent no. 1 in the order impugned, where it had found the termination of service of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 6(N), 6(P) and 6(Q) as illegal and arbitrary, and therefore set it aside.

23. With regard to the age of superannuation being reached by some workmen before the impugned order, it has been averred that the workmen are contesting their case relating to their wrongful termination of service from 1987-1988 Writ Petition No. 2158 of 1991 was allowed by this Court in 2006. The Labour Court reheard the matter and delivered the impugned Award in 2013. The present writ petition before this Court has been filed thereafter. The workmen cannot be put to a disadvantage because of the pendency of litigation.

54. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the private respondents, this Court has perused the record as filed before the respondent no. 1 and the impugned Award dated 11.10.2013. It is evident that initially the Reference order dated 31.3.1988 had only referred the question regarding wrongful termination or otherwise of the respondent nos. 3 to 14, whose names were given in the Annexure to the said Reference order. The Reference was initially registered as adjudication case no. 167 of 1988 and it was rejected by the Labour Court, Varanasi on 18.5.1990. The respondent no. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 2958 of 1991. The judgment rendered by this Court on 3.3.2006 setting aside the initial Award of the Labour Court dated 18.5.1990 has been filed as Annexure no. 12 to the writ petition, a perusal thereof shows that this Court had considered and approved of the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 14 that the Labour Court had wrongly come to a conclusion that the workmen were engaged on a project work and the work came to an end when the project came to an end. The workmen had been engaged and worked for more than 240 days in every such term of appointment as mentioned in the appointment letters issued from year to year for almost seven to eight years. Artificial breaks amounted to unfair labour practice, and before termination, the employers did not comply with the provisions of Section 6(N).