Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
The Joint Director Agriculture Extension and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Chhote Lal - Respondent
Writ - C No. 18666 of 2017
Decided On : 19-04-2023
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Employment and Service matter - Workman - Termination – Reinstatement - Case of petitioners was that workman had obtained his appointment by committing fraud and when said fraud had come to knowledge of the petitioners, the services of respondent-workman were terminated - It is further pleaded that after abolition of Rice Scheme, there was no vacancy an workman had no right of reinstatement - It is further pleaded that dispute was raised after a long period of 10-11 years from date of termination and that respondent had been paid salary upto which includes salary of one month from date of notice dated - Further case of petitioners before Labour Court was, as also pleaded in writ petition, that the Agricultural Department is a Government Department and not an ''Industry' and therefore Labour Court had erred in treating dispute as covered by provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, award is illegal - Whether the respondent was or was not gainfully employed during the intervening period or thereafter, Court find that the reinstatement with 25% back-wages along with continuity in past service was not justified. [Para 41]
Finding of Court : Court finds from above noted discussion of various documents relating to the services of respondent that it cannot be treated that merely because Rice Scheme was abolished, respondent would loose his status as that of ''a workman' - Reason is that Agricultural Department may deploy any labour to serve any purpose of the department and even if it is accepted that respondent was working under Rice Scheme of Government - Keeping in view law laid down in the aforesaid authorities as well as undisputed factual position that reference was made at a very belated stage of 10-11 years after termination and there being no finding by the Labour Court in impugned award as to whether respondent was or was not gainfully employed during intervening period or, Court find that the reinstatement with 25% back-wages along with continuity in past service was not justified - In facts and circumstances of case, a consolidated and lump sum amount of compensation could have served purpose to console respondent whose services were terminated, not only in light of documents but also considering his service book which describe nature of his appointment with all other aspects associated with it.
Result : Writ petition is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The Challenge
1. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, Project Officer (Agriculture) under the District Agriculture Officer, District Basti and the Block Development Officer, Farinda, District Maharajganj, as co-petitioners, have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 30.11.2015, published on 28.03.2016, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No.75 of 1999.
Writ Petition
2. As per the pleadings contained in the writ petition, the respondent Chhote Lal (hereinafter referred to as the "workman") was temporarily engaged in the year 1986-87 under the Rice Scheme as an internal arrangement as Kamdar/Chowkidar and when the Rice Scheme was abolished, the continuity of 96 Kaamdars/Chowkidars was cancelled by the Government Order dated 17.10.1987 and, thereafter, the services of the workman were terminated after giving him a notice dated 01.08.1988. Thereafter, under the order dated 11.05.1999 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur to examine the question as to whether the termination of the workman was proper or legal with effect from 01.09.1988 and, if not, what relief/compensation the workman was entitled to. It is further pleaded that before the Labour Court, the parties made their submissions and led evidence. The case of the petitioners was that the workman had obtained his appointment by committing fraud and when the said fraud had come to the knowledge of the petitioners, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. It is further pleaded that after abolition of Rice Scheme, there was no vacancy and, therefore, the workman had no right of reinstatement. It is further pleaded that the dispute was raised after a long period of 10-11 years from the date of termination and that the respondent had been paid salary upto 31.08.1988 which includes the salary of one month from the date of notice dated 01.08.1988. Further case of the petitioners before the Labour Court was, as also pleaded in the writ petition, that the Agricultural Department is a Government Department and not an ''Industry' and therefore the Labour Court had erred in treating the dispute as covered by the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the award is illegal.
3. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioners is to the effect that the engagement of the respondent-workman as a labour was under a temporary arrangement for the purposes of working under the Rice Scheme which did not remain operative after 1987 and, therefore, consequential termination of the services of the respondent workman was not illegal.
4. The Labour Court, by the impugned award dated 30.11.2015, has directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman on his post with continuity in past services along with 25% back-wages with effect from 01.09.1988.
Counter Affidavit
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-workman stating that the Agricultural Department falls within the definition of ''Industry' and the services of the respondent-workman were neither temporary nor dependent upon the Rice Scheme. Reliance has been placed upon various annexures which also form part of the writ petition to explain the nature of the services rendered by the respondent-workman.
Rejoinder Affidavit
6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners substantially reiterating the version contained in the writ petition. It has also been mentioned that pursuant to the interim order dated 22.05.2017 passed by this Court in the present writ petition, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited in the account of Labour Court, Gorakhpur through R.T.J.S. vide Treasury Token No. 331769925, dated 07.09.2017 and Voucher No.14, dated 08.09.2017.
Interim order passed in this case
7. This Court while entertaining the present writ petition passed following interim order dated 22.05.2017:-
Point of Law : Consolidated and lump sum amount of compensation could have served the purpose to console respondent whose services were terminated, not only in the light of documents but also conside....
The Irrigation Department is classified as an industry under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and termination without compliance with statutory provisions is unlawful.
The Irrigation Department is classified as an 'Industry' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and retrenchment without notice or compensation violates Section 6(N).
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
