Back
2001 Supreme(All) 930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Singh
UTTER PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTER PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 27947 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/17/2001
Anil Bhushan, DINESH DWIVEDI, J.N.TIVARI, R.K.OJHA, RAKESH TEWARI
The main legal point established is that engagement for a fixed term does not exempt an employer from complying with retrenchment provisions under Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Contractual Employment - U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 4-K, Section 2-A, Section 6-N, Section 6-P, Section 6-O
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's award, which directed the reinstatement of an employee, who was engaged on a fixed-term contract and whose services were terminated. The petitioner argued that the State government's reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal, and that the employee's termination did not constitute retrenchment under Section 6-N.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State government's reference was valid, and the employee's termination fell within the ambit of Section 6-N. The court also noted that the employee's engagement for a fixed term did not preclude the application of Section 6-N, and that the petitioner's failure to follow recruitment regulations did not exempt them from compliance with Section 6-N.
Issues: Validity of State government's reference, applicability of Section 6-N to fixed-term employment, compliance with recruitment regulations
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State government's reference was valid, and the employee's termination constituted retrenchment under Section 6-N. The court also emphasized that engagement for a fixed term did not exempt the petitioner from complying with Section 6-N, and failure to follow recruitment regulations did not absolve them from Section 6-N compliance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Labour Court's award and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of the court's observations.
( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court (I) Kanpur dated 9. 8. 1990 passed in Adjudication Case No. 153 of 1986 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition ).
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 Keshav Kumar Tandan was appointed on daily wage as Peon in the petitioners Bank initially for a fixed period upto 31. 3. 1984 by appointment letter dated 2. 2. 1984. In pursuance of that appointment letter dated 2. 2. 1984. respondent No. 3 submitted his joining report on 4. 2. 1984. The appointment letter dated 2. 2. 1984 and the joining as was submitted by the respondent No. 3 has been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. In the joining as has been submitted by the respondent No. 3 dated 4. 2. 1984 he specifically states "mujhe Uprokta Aadesh Me Lagoo Samast Seva sharte Manzoor Hai". After 31. 3. 1984 respondent No. 3 was again appointed vide letter dated 16/19th November, 1984 for a period upto 31st December, 1984 and again appointment was given to the respondent No. 3 by letter dated 2. 1. 1985, with a stipulation that his appointment would come to an automatic end on expiry of the fixed term. In pursuance of the appointment letter dated 2. 1. 1985 working of the respondent No. 3 came to an end on 31. 3. 1985.
( 3 ) ON account of cessation of work a dispute was raised by the respondent No. 3 in respect to his continuance, upon which the State government has made a reference in exercise of powers under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 to the effect that "whether termination of services of Keshav Kumar Tandan w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985 is legal and if not, then to what relief he is entitled. "
( 4 ) INITIALLY the Labour Court gave an ex-parte award on 25. 10. 1986. An application was moved by the petitioner for setting aside the award being ex-parte was also rejected by the Labour Court on 27. 6. 1987. Therefore, the matter having been taken up by the petitioner in the writ petition, the writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 8. 9. 1989 passed in Writ Petition no. 512 of 1987 and the ex-parte award was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court.
( 5 ) ON remand of the matter, petitioner filed written statement on 1. 3. 1990. It was stated in the writ petition that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 was contractual one and it is a case of non-renewal of the fixed term contract of employment which do not come within the definition of retrenchment. It was further stated that the appointment of the respondent no. 3 was for a fixed term which was duly accepted by him and therefore, on completion of the period the engagement automatically came to an end.
( 6 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings it was stated that reference is not coverable under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. After filing written statement, statement of M. C. Verma, the manager was given. On record there is written statement of the respondent No. 3 as well as his own statement. After pleadings of the parties and the statements the Labour Court gave its award on 9. 8. 1990 which was published in the Notice Board of the Labour Court on 6th December, 1990 which has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, which has been impugned before this court.
( 7 ) BY the aforesaid award, respondent No. 3 was directed to be reinstated with further direction in respect to his pay.
( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that reference by the State Government was illegal, void and bad in law as appropriate government in respect to the petitioner Bank is Central Government and as such reference can be made only by the Central Government under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by the State government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was submitted that the petitioner is a scheduled Bank in co-operative sector, activities of which is regulated by the Banking Regulations
