Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – Petitioner
Versus
Hem Singh and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) Nos. 38893, 38900, 42565, 42775, 42785, 42798, 42803, 42809, 42817, 42824, 42825, 42827, 42830, 42831, 42839, 42843, 42844, 42853 of 2018, Writ (C) Nos. 8454, 8474 of 2024
Decided On : 16-10-2024
(A) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(A), 6(E)(2)(b), 6(F), and 6(H)(1) - Regularization of services - The Industrial Tribunal directed the regularization of workmen's services, finding that they had worked continuously and were entitled to benefits. The petitioner argued lack of master-servant relationship and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the unfair labor practices involved. (Paras 10, 15, 24, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal has the authority to regularize services where unfair labor practices are established, provided there are no sanctioned posts available. (Paras 16, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's award for regularization of workmen's services, asserting no employment relationship existed. The Tribunal found that the workmen had been employed for years and were entitled to regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award for regularization was upheld, confirming the workmen's employment status and entitlement to benefits.
Issues: Whether the workmen had a master-servant relationship with the petitioner and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to regularize services based on evidence of continuous employment and unfair labor practices.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vineet Pandey and Mr. Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Advocates for the Petitioner-Authority/Respondent- Authority, Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Pandey, Advocate for Respondents-Workmen/Petitioners-Workmen and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents in all the writ petitions.
2. Since common issues are involved in all the writ petitions, hence all the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and are being decided by a common order and Writ Petition No. 38900 of 2018 shall be treated as a leading petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1976”) came into force on 1.4.1976 and Petitioner-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “GNIDA”) was constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1976. The services of the employees of the GNIDA are governed by the provisions of Greater Noida Service Regulations, 1993. Respondent nos. 2 to 6, as elected representatives of workmen of petitioner, moved an application under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to As the “Act of 1947”) before Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner on 17.4.1998, stating that workmen had continuously worked in the petitioner-authority but their services have not been regularized. The aforementioned case was registered as C.B. No. 17/1998 and C.B. No. 1/2002. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad issued notice in the conciliation proceeding wherein the petitioner-authority filed objection, stating that workmen are not employees of the petitioner-authority, accordingly, conciliation proceeding was failed and matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government vide letter/orders dated 31.1.2000 & 14.9.2007 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut which were registered as Adjudication Case Nos.6 of 2000 & 4 of 2007 wherein the Labour Court issued notice to the petitioner-authority as well as the workmen for adjudication of the industrial dispute. The petitioner as well as respondent-workmen/union filed their written statement in the aforementioned adjudication case. Both the parties filed their rejoinder to the written statements filed by the respective parties. The respondent-workmen/union also filed case under Section 6-F of the Act of 1947 which was registered as Misc. Case Nos. 15 of 2004 to 27 of 2004 and 45 of 2005 to 47 of 2005. An application dated 26.11.2011 was also filed in the aforementioned Adjudication Case No. 6/2000 for consolidating the aforementioned misc. cases with Adjudication Case No. 6/2000. Both the parties adduced oral evidence in support of their cases. On the application 83-D of the respondent-workmen/ union for consolidating the Adjudication Case No. 6/2000 (which was filed with regard to 129 workmen) and Adjudication Case No. 4/2007 (which was filed with regard to 111 workmen) was allowed by Industrial Tribunal/respondent no. 6 vide order dated 7.10.2016. Respondent no. 6/Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 29.5.2018 as published on 4.9.2018 allowed the claim of respondent-workmen, directing the petitioner-authority to regularize the services of the respondent-workmen from the date of reference order and all consequential benefit in Adjudication Case No. 6/2000 and Adjudication Case No. 4/2007. Hence, Writ Petition No. 38900 of 2018 for the following relief:
Writ Petition No. 38893 of 2018 has been filed for the following relief:
“Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certior
The Industrial Tribunal can regularize services of workmen if unfair labor practices are established, even in the absence of sanctioned posts.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court established that unequal treatment in employment regularization, despite available posts, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
Long-term service in sanctioned positions can warrant regularization despite age limitations in recruitment, emphasizing continuity and eligibility for qualified employees.
The obligation of the employer to regularise the service of workmen and the prohibition against unfair labour practices under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Employees engaged in irregular appointments may be entitled to regularisation if they have served continuously and their appointments were not illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act can only be considered a dispute if a specific demand has been made by the workmen, and any refere....
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
