Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B. MISRA, J.
Deoria Kasia Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 29849 of 2000
Decided on : 29-09-2004
Regulation 1975 - Employment Dispute - U.P. Co-operative Societies Employee's Service Regulation, 1975 - Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - Regulation 4 of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Regulations, 1985
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an award reinstating a temporary employee as a workman with full back wages. The employee was appointed on a temporary basis for a fixed period, and the petitioner argued that the employee's deployment was not needed due to open recruitment. The labor court found that the employee worked without a break and was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee worked without a break and was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned award.
Issues: The issues involved the temporary appointment of the employee, compliance with relevant regulations, and entitlement to reinstatement and back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employee's continuous service and entitlement to reinstatement were governed by Regulation 1975 and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The court also considered the provisions of Regulation 4 of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Regulations, 1985.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the award reinstating the employee as a workman with full back wages.
R.B. MISRA, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel for the State.
2. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the award dated 16.11.1999 published on 19.4.2000, passed by Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhur in Adjudication Case No. 125 of 1990 whereby Respondent No. 3 (Jugal Kishore Tripathi) was reinstated as a workman with continuity of service with full back wages. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a workman/peon in class IV category on temporary basis for the fixed period of 180 days as a stop gap arrangement in terms of the resolution dated 6.6.1986 of managing committee of the 'The Deoria Kasia Zila Sahkari Bank (in short called 'Bank'). By appointment order dated 24.6.1986 the Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a temporary employee in stop gap arrangement in view of the Regulation 5 (iii) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employee's Service Regulation, 1975 (in short called 'Regulation 1975'). The Regulation 5 is indicated as below:
Recruitment.-(i) Recruitment for appointment in a co-operative society shall be made through Board whether the recruitment is:
(a) direct, or
(b) by promotion....
(c) by taking on deputation or otherwise....
(ii) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (i) no reference to the Board shall be necessary in following cases:
(a) ....
(b) when a Managing Committee or any other authority competent to make appointment proposes to fill up as stop-gap measure for a period not exceeding six months a post by promotion from a months the employee:
Provided that....
Provided further that....
(iii) The Board may, pending selection for the post to be filled in any direct recruitment, permit stop gap arrangement to be made by appointing authority for a period not exceeding 180 days:
Provided that the intimation of such appointment is given to the Board forthwith and it is ensured that proper requisition for the post, as also additional information required by the Board, if any, has been furnished to it:
Provided further that Board may in special circumstances, and at the request of the appointing authority, extend the period of 180 days, by a period not exceeding 120 days:
Provided also that the appointment made under this clause shall cease to have effect from the date on which the original "period or the extended period appointment under this clause expires.
3. It also appears that to cope of the work of the 'Bank' the Management Committee 'Bank' again resolved by a resolution dated 26.12.1986 to appoint the Respondent workman for another period of 58 days by separate appointment letter dated 9.2.1987. According to the Petitioner since U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board has conducted an open recruitment and many of the persons have been appointed, therefore, the Respondent's deployment was not needed and there was a break in the service of the Respondent employee from 19.12.1986 to 8.2.1987. Therefore, his deployment was ceased from 9.4.1987, in these circumstances the following question was referred before the labour court:
Kya Sewayojkon Dwara Apne Shramik Jugul Kishore Tripathi Putra Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari, Pad-Chaprasi Ko Dinank 9.4.1987 Se Karya Se Prathuk Kiya Jane Uchit Tatha/Athawa Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahin, To Sambandhit Shramik Kya Labh/Anutosh (Relief) Paney Ka Adhikari Hai, Tatha Anya Kis Vivran Sahit?
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Respondent and for on behalf of the Petitioner the labour court arrived at finding that the Respondent employee was working without any break and he was paid the salary for the period he had worked. It has been noted by the Presiding Officer in its award dated 16.11.1999 that the Respondent was given appointment twice and the compliance of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed, therefore, the e
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
