Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1977
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJIT KUMAR, J.
State of U.P. and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Komal Yadav @ Ram Komal and Another - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58897 of 2012
Decided On : 21-12-2022
For the Petitioners: Anoop Kumar Srivastava and Amit Manohar (A.C.S.C.).
For the Respondents: Chandra Bhan Gupta, S.C., Shyam Narain and Sudhanshu Narain.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that illegal retrenchment entitles a workman to reinstatement and backwages, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions in employment matters.
Headnote:
Reinstatement - Industrial Disputes - Sections 6N, 6P, 6Q - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision for reinstatement and backwages, interpreting the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, emphasizing the illegality of retrenchment without due process and the entitlement to backwages.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-workman was allegedly retrenched from his position in the Forest Department after working for over four years. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of the workman, ordering reinstatement and backwages, which the petitioners contested on grounds of delay and lack of unfair labor practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workman had worked for over 240 days, making his retrenchment illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The delay in reference was not sufficient to reject the claim, and the Tribunal's order for reinstatement and backwages was justified.
Issues: Whether the reference was barred by time and whether the Tribunal's order for backwages was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in making a reference does not automatically invalidate it, and reinstatement with backwages is warranted when retrenchment is found illegal, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Result: The court upheld the Tribunal's award for reinstatement and backwages but set aside the order for interest on backwages.
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.) :
Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri R.M. Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Forest Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and petitioner No. 2 is the Forest Range Officer of the Sohagibarwa Range (Shivpur), Maharajganj. The petitioners are aggrieved against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 04.11.2011 directing for reinstatement of respondent- workman namely Komal Yadav @ Ram Komal (herein after referred to as 'workman') with backwages alongwith interest at the rate of 9%.
3. Three-fold argument has been advanced before the Court :
(A) The reference was highly barred by time as having been made after almost a decade of the alleged retrenchment dated 09.08.1991 of the workman;
(B) The department being a Forest Department and having no history of unfair labour practice, could not have been directed to reinstate the workman and the one time compensation should have been ordered instead; and
(C) The Tribunal was not justified in directing for payment of backwages alongwith interest at the rate of 9% without assigning any special reason so as to direct for payment of interest.
4. The petitioner department has argued that instead of reinstatement, it could have been directed for payment of compensation only. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar; 2019 (14) SCC 353.
5. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, Mr. Sudhanshu Narain that mere delay in making reference by the State Government would by itself not be a ground to reject the reference as barred by time, inasmuch as, the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the department that was already busy in absorption of certain daily rated workers employed within a cut off date, inasmuch as, matter was already engaging attention of conciliation officer and even in the year 2000 he had reiterated his claim with the department. It is argued that if State has taken time in making a reference, the time taken was in his control so he should not be penalised for the same. He submits that neither the petitioner, nor the State Government can be said to be in any manner responsible for any delay and latches. In support of his argument, learned Advocate has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Engineer, Ranjeet Sagar Dam and another v. Sham Lal, 2006 (9) SCC 124.
6. Counsel for the contesting respondent-workman has secondly argued that the department has a history of hiring labour and firing them at its sweet will and this is the reason why for many decades the department is faced with a large number of litigations before the High Court wherein ultimately directions were issued to consider the absorption of such daily wage workers/casual workers. He submits that still a number of petitions are pending where directions have been issued for payment of minimum wages to such daily rated workers who could not have been absorbed in the regular cadre. In support of his above argument, the respondent-workman has relied upon an order of High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ram Swarup and another, 2003 (99) FLR 665 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Shri Prahalad and others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28491 of 2006. Counsel for the respondent-workman has also argued that if the workman had worked for 240 days, he deserved to be reinstated but he had been fired. Such an act on the part of the department would certainly be in violation of Sections 6N, 6P and 6Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act of 1947') and, therefore, such a workman would deserve reinstatement.
7. The third argument advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent-workman is that once the termination of the w
