Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Awadhesh Singh on 20 May, 1993

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs Labour Court, Gorakhpur And Another on 26 May, 1999

In the first case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra), from the facts of the case it appears that the respondent Awadhesh Stngh straightaway filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that even though he was appointed on daily wages basis, he worked for whole of the crushing season 1988-89 and he continued to work in that capacity in subsequent season up to 1990-91 but thereafter, when the Mill reopened, he was not called to join his duties. It was claimed that the petitioner was a seasonal workman and was entitled to resume his duties and he also claimed wages/salary from 8.11.1991. The writ petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court. However, on appeal being filed by the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., a Division Bench of this Court held that "before a workman can be declared as seasonal, he must be engaged for the crushing seasons. The appointment of the respondent was not for the crushing season but was on dally wages basis without reference to any fixed period. Such an appointment cannot be treated to be appointment for the crushing season. Merely because the nature of work of a dally wager is not of casual nature, he cannot be treated to be seasonal workman. A dally wage cannot be declared to be seasonal workman because he has worked for substantive part in more than one crushing season. Such a workman may at the most be treated as temporary workman unless his appointment is referable to crushing season and he has worked in that season." it was also held by the Court that "normally the controversy of the nature which is involved in the instant case should be decided by the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction is not appropriate forum for resolving such a dispute. We would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the labour Court, but as the learned single Judge has entertained the writ petition and decided on merit, we are also disposing of the appeal on merits." Thus, in the aforesaid case, admitted facts as well as finding of facts was that the appointment of the petitioner was as a dally wager and not for the crushing season.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P K Jain - Full Document

Gangeshwar Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 29 August, 2000

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been annexed with the writ petition, reported in 1993 (67) FLR 602, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Awadhesh Singh and Ors.. This was a case of Weighhment Clerk in which he claimed that he was a seasonal workman not a temporary workman. The Court held that the petitioner of that petition was a temporary workman and could not be declared as seasonal workman and dismissed the writ petition. However, the Court observed in Para 8 of the judgment that "normally the controversy of the nature which is involved in the case should be decided by the Labour Court of Industrial Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving such a dispute. We would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Labour Court, but as the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition and decided on merit, we are also disposing of the special appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P C Verma - Full Document
1