http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 13

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7304 of 2005

PETITIONER:

U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

Udai Narain Pandey

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2005

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14945 of 2004]

S.B. Sinha, J :

Leave granted.

Whether direction to pay backwages consequent upon a declaration

that a workman has been retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section

6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (equivalent to Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) as a rule is in question in this appeal

which arises out of a judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 passed by a

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.

Writ Petition No. 23890 of 1992 dismissing the appeal preferred by the

Appellant herein arising out of a judgment and order dated 8th July, 1992.

The Appellant is an undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The

Respondent herein was appointed on 23rd July, 1984 in a project known as

Project Peetal Basti by the Appellant for looking after the construction of

building, cement loading and unloading. He worked in the said project from

23.7.1984 till 8.1.1987. He was thereafter appointed in Non-Ferrous Rolling

Mill. By an order dated 12/13.2.1987, the competent authority of the Non-

Ferrous Mill of the Appellant passed the following order:

"Following two persons are hereby accorded

approval for appointment in Non-Ferrous Rolling

Mill on minimum daily wages for the period w.e.f.

date indicated against their name till 31-3-1987.

Sl No. Name Date

1. Sh. Hori Lal 7-1-1987

2. Sh. Uday Narain Pandey 8-1-1987"

The services of the Respondent were terminated on the expiry of his

tenure. An industrial dispute having been raised, the appropriate

government by an order dated 14.9.1998 referred the following dispute for

adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh:

"Whether the employer’s decision to terminate the

Workman Sh. Uday Narain son of Pateshwari

Pandey w.e.f. 1-4-87 was illegal and improper? If

yes whether the concerned workman is entitled to

the benefit of retrenchment and other benefit?"

The Project Officer of the Appellant-Corporation appears to have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 13

granted a certificate showing the number of days on which the Respondent

performed his duties.

The Labour Court in its award dated 31.10.1991 came to the finding

that the Respondent worked for more than 240 days in each year of 1985-

1986. It was directed:

"Therefore, I reached to the decision that the

employer should reinstate the concerned workman

Uday Narain Pandey son of Sh. Pateshwari Pandey

w.e.f. the date of retrenchment i.e. 1-4-87 and he

should be paid entire backwage with any other

allowances w.e.f. same date within 30 days from

the date of this order together with Rs. 50/-

towards cost of litigation to Sh. Uday Narain

Pandey. I decide accordingly in this Industrial

Dispute."

The Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High

Court in May, 1992 which was marked as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.

23890 of 1992 inter alia contending that as the Respondent had not rendered

service continuously for a period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately before his retrenchment uninterruptedly, he

was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act. It was further contended that the appointment of the

Respondent was on contractual basis for a fixed tenure which came to an end

automatically as stipulated in the aforementioned order dated 12/13.2.1987.

An application was filed by the Respondent herein un