Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru Its Executive Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/ State and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Baquer Mehdi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 raised the industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication vide reference order dated 16. 1.2006 with respect to termination of service of respondent no.2/ workman with effect from 29.9.1998. The aforementioned reference was registered as adjudication case No. 205/ 2006. Respondent no.2/ workman filed his written statement (Paper No. 5-A) stating that he was working on the post of Chowkidar in department of petitioner since 1986 and worked up to 28.9.1998. It was also stated in the written statement that with effect from 29. 9.1998, the service of the petitioner was orally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also mentioned in the written statement that respondent no.2 had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Petitioner/ employer had also filed his written statement (Paper No. 9-A) stating that department is a Gover
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).
The court upheld the Labour Court's award of minimum wages and compensation for wrongful termination, asserting the need for procedural adherence under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court ruled that the petitioner did not raise jurisdictional issues regarding its status as an industry, thus the Labour Court's award stands, except for the direction on regularization.
The court reaffirmed that failure to follow termination procedures under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act warrants compensation, but does not guarantee regularization of services.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding termination of services an....
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
