Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(II) The respondent no.1 could not prove his continuous service in a year for 240 days or more and as such it was not open for the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to hold that the respondent no.1 was in service for 240 days.

(III) Paragraph 5 of the impugned award records the facts that six documents were filed by the petitioners but the same have been completely ignored, while passing the impugned award.

(IV) The case was being heard by the Labour Court No.(3), Kanpur but without any notice or information it was transferred to Labour Court No.(2), Kanpur. In the mean time, the construction Division-III, in which the respondent no.1 was engaged, was merged with the provincial Division in the year 1998. In the circumstances, the petitioners were completely unaware of the proceedings in Labour Court No.(2), Kanpur.

(IV) Whether the findings recorded by the Court below that the respondent no.1 continuously worked for 240 days or more is perverse?

(V) Whether on the admitted facts of the case that the respondent no.1 was a daily wager engaged temporarily on muster roll is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service and entire back wages and benefits?

(VI) Whether the award can travel beyond the reference, which was made only for compensation?

12. The issues no.1 and 2 are interlinked. The facts of the case of the case as mentioned above, clearly shows that the petitioners received the notice/summon in adjudication case no. 174/99 and participated in the proceedings. The ground for violation of natural justice pleaded by petitioners is that when the case was transferred from Labour Court No.(2), Kanpur to Labour Court No.(3), they were not issued fresh notices. I find no force in the submission. A notice dated 8.12.1999 was issued by the Labour Court No.(2) U.P., Kanpur to the petitioners by registered post fixing 25.1.2000 which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit and the same is undisputed. The respondent no.1 has also filed the proof of service of the said registered notice as Annexure no.2 to the supplementary counter affidavit. This leaves no manner of doubt to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were issued due notices but they deliberately not appeared. In the circumstances, the allegation of breach of principles of natural justice is totally baseless.

27.In our view, Harjinder Singh2 and Devinder Singh3 do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute."

Issue No.6 :

52. Since the case is being remanded to the respondent no.2 for decision afresh, as such I refrain from expressing any opinion on this issue on the facts of the present case. However, it may be noted that Labour Court is a court of referred jurisdiction and, therefore, it must confine itself to the reference which is before it. It cannot travel beyond the reference. In the case of U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Phool Chand and another, 2006(1)UPLBEC 83, this Court held in para 7 as under :