Jarnail vs State Harig India Ltd. Vs Labour Court and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—Both the writ petitions are directed against the same award i.e. award dated 19.09.1988 given by Presiding officer labour court U.P. Ghaziabad in adjudication case No. 31 of 1980. First writ petition has been filed by the workman and the second by the employer. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the employer Harig India Ltd. terminating the services of Jarnail Singh its workman/Assistant foreman w.e.f. 11.11.1978 was just and valid or not. The labour Court held that retrenchment was illegal and unjust accordingly reinstatement was directed, however, backwages were totally denied on the ground that the workman was doing his own business and the said fact had been admitted by him in his statement dated 04.02.1987 also.

In support of the writ petition filed by the workman in the year 1989, he filed his own affidavit in which his age was shown as 41 years. Accordingly, now he must be 62 years i.e. beyond the age of superannuation.

As far as the question of backwages is concerned categorical finding was recorded by the labour court that workman himself was carrying on his own business hence there was no question of grant of any backwages.

In para 12 of the writ petition filed by the employer it was mentioned that "the Labour Inspector had made an inspection and prepared inspection report. Photo copy of the inspection report is attached as Annexure "6" to the writ petition. In this report the Labour Inspector has mentioned that Respondent No. 2 had employed a Fitter on a salary of Rs. 600/- per month, a Welder at a salary of Rs. 600/- per month and a Turner at a salary of Rs. 460/- per month. In fact there are many more workers in the factory of Respondent No. 2 who were not present at the time of inspection and whose names have not been deliberately mentioned in the records of Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is making huge profits from his business at lest Rs. 10,000/- per month".

Annexure-VI, the Labour inspector''s report is for the year 1980-81. In the counter affidavit in para 13 the only thing which has been stated is "that the contents of paragraph 12 of the writ petition are denied that the labour court would have not granted relief of reinstatement to the Petitioner". This clearly amounts to admission of the allegation made in para 12 of the writ petition that the workman had himself become employer and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month which was a huge amount in the year 1990/-.

Accordingly, writ petition filed by the workman deserves to be dismissed. As far as writ petition filed by the employer is concerned, in para 9 of the said writ petition it has been stated that after the award the employer reinstated the workman, however, as the workman was carrying on his own business in the name and style of National Machinery continuously at Ghaziabad since 1978 in which he was making good profit hence he was not interested in working in the Petitioner''s factory. It was further stated that business carried out by the employer and by the workman was similar. It has also been stated in para 9 that the workman again started absenting himself. In para 11 it is stated that the delay in filing the writ petition was caused due to the fact that the employer had complied with the award initially by reinstating the workman, however, subsequently the workman again started behaving in irresponsible manner. In the counter affidavit filed by the workman in the writ petition filed by the employer it has been stated in para 10 which is in reply to para 9 of the writ petition that the Petitioner though showed that the deponent had been reinstated in service, however, in fact he was harassed in one way or the other; that the deponent was not reinstated in service despite the award of reinstatement passed in his favour by the labour court; that the deponent again and again requested the Petitioner to honour the award but nothing was done; that thereafter the deponent sent a notice for reinstatement through his authorised representative Sri S.K. Sharma on 29.12.1988. Thereafter, it is stated that the workman made a representation to Deputy Labour Commissioner on 01.12.1989. Thereafter in the same paragraph it is mentioned that A.L.O. Sri S.K. Srivastava on the direction of conciliation Officer went to the establishment of the employer on 02.02.1989 and the workman was allowed to resume work, however, as soon as the A.L.O. went outside the premises the workman was informed that his attendance had been marked and he should go back. Thereafter, it is mentioned that on 3rd and 4th February 1989 workman was not allowed to resume work. Thereafter, in the same paragraph it is mentioned that the workman was, thereafter, due to intervention of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, taken on work but was harassed in one way or the other and that he was not given proper work, ESI Card, attendance card etc. the deponent workman therefore made representation to the Petitioner on 10.06.1989 and 16.06.1989.

In any case it is admitted to both the parties that after the award of the labour court the workman was reinstated. The employer also stated that initially it was not interested in challenging award of reinstatement and had infact reinstated the workman. It is quite clear that some fresh dispute arose between parties after the reinstatement. Such subsequent dispute cannot have any concern with the award impugned in these writ petitions.

Accordingly, writ petition filed by the workman is dismissed on merit and writ petition filed by the employer is dismissed as infructuous.