AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ
Both these LPAs, one filed by the workman and other by the Management, arise out of order dt.18.03.2015 in CWP No. 2032 of 2010.
2) The said Writ petition itself was filed by the Management challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 141 of 2004, whereby the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the workman with seniority and continuity in service, but denied back-wages.
3) The learned Single Judge modified the award denying to the workman benefits of seniority and continuity in service.
4) To the extent the workman was aggrieved, he has filed
LPA No. 71 of 2015.
5) To the extent the management felt aggrieved, it has filed LPA No. 144 of 2016.
6) The Counsel for the management has contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge as to the grant of relief of reinstatement to the workman are not warranted, having regard to the stand taken by the Management that the workman had not worked for 240 days’ in the preceding period. It is also pointed out that none of the material marked on behalf of the Management in the Labour Court has been considered in the award passed by the Labour Court or by the Single Judge in the Writ petition filed by the Management against the award of the Labour Court.
7) On verification of the award of the Labour Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that both of them have not considered the material placed on record by the Management regarding the number of mandays’ worked by the workman prior to his termination. This is an aspect, which has a bearing on the matter.
7(A) We may also point out that the basis of the award of the Labour Court that the petitioner was made regular vide order Ex.P-6 is not factually correct, as is admitted by the workman himself.
8) Counsel for the workman however sought to contend that the workman was not allotted work deliberately by the Management. This is also a matter to be gone into by the Labour Court, and it does not appear to have done so and neither the Single Judge gone into this aspect.
9) Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case LPA No. 144 of 2016 is allowed; order dt.18.03.2015 in CWP No. 2032 of 2010 is set aside; award passed by the Presiding Judge Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla being award dt.04.03.2010 in Reference No. 141 of 2004 is also set aside.
10) Matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, for fresh adjudication. The said Labour Court shall consider the pleas of all the parties and the documents filed by them, which are already on record or which they seek to place on record, and then pass a reasoned award in accordance with law by 30.11.2024.
11) In view of the above, LPA No. 71 of 2015 is dismissed granting liberty to the appellant therein to raise all contentions open to him before the Labour Court.
12) All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.