Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 March, 1997
7. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that he was a daily wager and not a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has given a finding of fact based on the evidence of the workman that the workman had not been given any appointment letter and was engaged at the site in exigency of work as daily wager. The appointments in the department are regulated by rules. Neither any averments nor any material had been brought on record by the petitioner that he was appointed against a post in accordance with rules. On the contrary it is evident from the pleadings of the workman that he was engaged on daily wages on day-to-day basis. He was a temporary employee and his disengagement from service cannot be construed as retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (s) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 391 :
Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 July, 1997
5. The Labour Court relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bombay Telecom Canteen Employees' Association v. Union of India, 1998 (1) AWC 25 (SC) (NOC) : 1997 (77) FLR 25 (SC), held that Public Works Department is not an industry and that the petitioner was a dally wager employee as such he does not fall within the ambit of definition of workman in Section 2 (s) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It further held that the petitioner had himself stopped coming to work and had abandoned his services there being no termination by any overt act of the employer and that disengagement of a daily wager is not retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the aforesaid Act.
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 99 para 23, it was emphasised by the Apex Court as to how judicial sympathy with such workman engaged in daily wages employed in project scheme or programme of the State Government could boomrang leading to pernicious consequences. The concern of the Apex Court in ordering indiscriminate regularisation of daily wages by the Courts is reflected thus :
General Manager, Telecom vs S.Srinivasa Rao & Ors on 18 November, 1997
11. Applying the principles laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) and considering the ratio laid down in General Manager Telecom v. S. Sriniwashan Rao and Ors., 1998 (1) AWC 658 (SC) ; 1998 (78) FLR 143 and Executive Engineer C.P.W.D., Indore v. Madhukar Purshottam Kolharkar (supra), the finding of the Labour Court that P.W.D. is not industry is quashed. In so far as the findings of the Labour Court that termination of services of the petitioner is not retrenchment as he had himself not come to work is not liable to be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage and was not appointed against any post, he has no right to be regularised in service as he failed to prove before the Labour Court that he was appointed against a sanctioned post in substantive vacancy. Engagement for 240 days from time to time on daily wage would not attract the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act unless it could established that he had continuously worked for 240 days in previous year counting backward from the date of termination of service and even in that eventuality he would have only been entitled to retrenchment compensation with interest.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1