High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 08 UK CK 0028

Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 August 2014 · Citation: (2014) 143 FLR 1002 : (2014) LLR 1246

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Nos. 1105 to 1109, 1119 to 1125 and 2459/2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 421 words

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Alok Singh, J.—All these writ petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Workmen were engaged in the petitioner''s factory purely on temporary basis on 2.12.1998; workmen were not allowed to work after 07.04.2004; undisputedly neither notices, as required under Section 6-N of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were served nor wages for the period of notice were paid to the workmen.

2.

It is not in dispute that workmen remained on duties from 02.12.1998 to 07.04.2004, therefore, have worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months.

3.

Since, services of the workmen were discontinued in violation of Section 6-N of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, termination/discontinuation of services cannot be said to be valid or justified. Now the question comes as to whether workmen should be directed to be reinstated or should be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute that no material was ever produced before learned Labour Court to show that workmen were not engaged gainfully after the termination of services till impugned award was passed or totally remained idle. Therefore, in any case, workmen are not entitled for the reinstatement with back wages.

5.

Since, services of the workmen were discontinued/terminated on 07.04.2004, therefore, after 10 years from the date of termination, reinstatement seems to be totally unjustified. Consequently, workmen are held to be entitled for compensation for wrongful termination of the services. Keeping in mind the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty, , I find that instead of reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 would be justified. Therefore, all these writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction that instead of reinstatement each and every workman would be paid one time monetary compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 each and such amount of compensation shall be either paid to the workman or shall be deposited for the payment to the workman with the Deputy Labour Commissioner within 30 days from today positively and amount already deposited under the interim order of this Court shall be adjusted. In case payment is not made or amount is not deposited within 30 days from today, the workmen shall also be paid interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till actual payment is released in favour of the workmen.