AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is the University and for exigencies of work had employed the respondent workman on daily rate basis in the year 1994. It is alleged that the services of the workman was terminated on 25th April, 1996. The dispute was referred by the workman with regard to the alleged termination in the year 2002. The Labour Court after considering the material evidence on record has held that since the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year the termination of the workman without complying with the provisions of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not justified and accordingly, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 20% back wages.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is, that they had never terminated the services of the workman and that the workman had left the work on his own accord.
Further, it has been stated that the workman admittedly was employed on a daily rate basis and, even assuming that the provisions of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied by the employers, it does not entitle the workman for reinstatement since he was not appointed on a regular post and that employment on daily rate basis is made on exigencies of work.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner consequently, submitted that the direction of reinstatement in the absence of any sanctioned post was not justified.
Having perused the award of the Labour Court and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court finds that admittedly the respondent workman was working on a daily rate basis and was not working on a sanctioned post. In the event, the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and his services were terminated arbitrarily without complying with the provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the Court is of the opinion that reinstatement could not be ordered as a matter of right and at best the Labour Court could have granted compensation payable in terms of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
However, the Court is not inclined to grant this relief alone as the Court finds that after the alleged removal of the workman, the University has been engaging persons on a daily rate basis. Consequently, the Court finds that there is a requirement of work.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the order directing the reinstatement is not justified, since the workman was on a daily rate basis and work requirement is only on the basis of exigencies of work.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement the workman is only entitled for 20% of the back wages with a further stipulation that the petitioner would keep a register in terms of the provisions of section 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and as and when there is a requirement of work, the petitioner would offer the service to the workman concerned. The amount of back wages shall be calculated and paid to the workman within six weeks from today.
The writ petition is partly allowed.