Advocates:
['RITVIK UPADHYA', 'C S C', '', 'ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA', 'GAURAV SRIVASTAVA']

1

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14757 of 2015

Petitioner :- Hindalko Industries Ltd. Renukoot

Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Mirzapur And

Anr.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritvik Upadhya

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav

Srivastava

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1.

Heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Sri Ritvik Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil

Kumar Srivastava alongwith Sri Gaurav Srivastava learned counsel

for respondent-workman and the learned Standing Counsel for the

State respondents.

2.

Present writ petition has been filed by the employer against the

award of the Labour Court, Mirzapur dated 07.10.2014 in

Adjudication Case No. 228 of 2008 whereby the Labour Court has

granted relief of reinstatement together with 50% back-wages to the

respondent-workman. To the extent of award of 50% back-wages, the

respondent-workman has filed Writ-C No. 4654 of 2016, which would

be decided by a separate order of date.

3.

The above award has arisen on the below quoted reference

made to the Labour Court vide order dated 11.7.2008:-

"Kya Sewayojkon dwara apne sambandhit

shramik/karmchari Sri Suresh Kumar Singh Putra

Swa. Babua Singh padd Sahayak Prabandhak ki

sewayein dinank 27.08.2008 se samaapt kiya jana

uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to

sambandhit

shramik/Karmchari

kya

hitlaabh/kshatipoorti/anutosh paane ka adhikari hai

evam anya kis hitlaabh sahit?"

4.

Undisputedly, the respondent-workman was appointed as

2

Draughtsman at the petitioner-establishment on 02.5.1986. On

21.4.1989 he was made permanent in the construction division on the

post of Draughtsman (Electrical). Thereafter, on 01.4.2002 he was

promoted on the post of Assistant Manager (M-2 Grade). In the

context of such employment, the respondent-workman claimed illegal

retrenchment with effect from 27.8.2008.

5.

Before the Labour Court, the petitioner set up a plea that the

respondent-workman was not a workman as defined in U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, the respondent-workman was primarily

discharging managerial and/or supervisory/administrative functions.

Besides oral evidence led by the petitioner-management, heavy

reliance was placed on photo stat copies of two documents being "Job

Analysis : Business Vertical" marked as Exhibit-E-1 and a letter dated

22.12.2005 written by the respondent-workman containing his request

for re-evaluation of job analysis and job band, marked as Exhibit-E-2.

By way of oral evidence, the management had proved the above two

documents.

6.

In the cross examination, it came out that the document Exhibit-

E-1 did not bear the signature of the respondent-workman on the first

six, out of total seven pages. However, at another place, during his

elaborate cross examination, the respondent-workman did admit that

the said document Exhibit-E-1 bore his signature, though the

document was never sent for appraisal to the human resource

department of the petitioner-establishment. With respect to Exhibit-E-

2, being letter written by the respondent-workman dated 22.12.2005,

though the respondent-workman initially sought to dispute reliability

or evidenciary value of the same citing the document to be photo stat

copy and nor the original, at the same time, during his further cross

examination, he conceded that the said document had been written by

3

him to the Vice President (HR) wherein he had described the nature of

duties performed by him. Extract of the cross examination statement

of the respondent-workman as is considered crucial for the decision in

the present matter is quoted below:-

"... Pradarsh E-01 job analysis me mera hastakshar

hai lekin ye H.R. department ko sameeksha ke liye

nahi bheja gaya yah 07 panno mein hai. Pradarsh

E-02 dinank 22.12.2005 mere dwara Vice

President H.R. ko bheja gaya patra hai isme maine

kiye jaane wale karyo ka ullekh ha