Back
ALOK MATHUR
Engineer-In-Chief Irrigation Dept. Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Nath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Mathur, J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners.
2. The State has preferred present writ petition being aggrieved by the award dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Lucknow in Case No. 279/2001 (Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department U.P., Lucknow and Ors. v. Shiv Nath).
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and the service has been deemed to be sufficient.
4. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that respondent-workman was engaged as daily wage labourer for temporary work in the Irrigation Department due to exigencies of work between 15.07.1986 to 31.12.1991. He worked in the Department from 01.12.1987 to 31.12.1987, 01.10.1988 to 31.10.1988 and and 01.02.1991 to 31.12.1991 and was paid his wages and subsequently his services were disengaged as his services were no longer required.
6. On his disengagement, he has approached Dy. Labour Commissioner, Lucknow on 1.08.1999 and his matter was referred for conciliation. The conciliation proceedings had failed and consequently a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate his case and the issues referred was
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 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 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.
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the employer to follow the procedure thereunder when a workman is employed in an industry and who has been in continuous service for not les....
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
