Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.Katju
FAIRBANKS MORSE INDIA LTD
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 10 September 1996
C. M. W. P. No. 18788 of 1996, of
Supervisory Functions - Termination of Service - Validity of Termination without Enquiry
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the impugned award dated 24-11-95 regarding the termination of service of the respondent No. 3 on 24-9-87. The court discussed the evidence on the record and found that the termination was without holding any enquiry and without complying with S. 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not filed any documentary evidence to show that the respondent No. 3 was performing supervisory functions. The court also noted that the petitioner's oral evidence was not supported by specific details, and the respondent and his witness stated that the respondent No. 3 was not performing supervisory work but only work of Turner. The court held that as this was a finding of fact, it could not interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. The court also found no infirmity in the impugned award and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Validity of termination of service without holding any enquiry and without complying with S. 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of documentary evidence to support the petitioner's claim that the respondent was performing supervisory functions, as well as the absence of specific details and the contradictory statements provided as oral evidence. The court also emphasized the requirement for holding an enquiry and complying with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act before terminating a worker's service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned award was upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 24-11-95. The reference order was as to whether the termination of service of the respondent No. 3 on 24-9-87 was valid and proper. Ear lier by the order dt. 12-2-93 it was held that the respondent workman was not perform ing supervisory functions. This order has discussed the evidence on the record. In the order dt. 12-2-93 it has been stated that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the respondent No. 3 was performing the work of supervisory na ture. The petitioner in his oral evidence alleged that some persons were working under the respondent No. 3 and the work of respondent No. 3 was supervisory in nature, but he has not given the name or number of persons who were alleged by working under the supervision of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 and his witness Anil Kumar stated that the respondent No. 3 was not doing supervisory work but only work of Turner. This being a finding of fact, I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. As regards the award, it has been stated therein that the petitioner had terminated the services of workman respondent No. 3 on 24-9-87 without holding any enquiry and without complying with S. 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act.
3. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The writ petition is dis missed.
Petition dismissed.
.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
