Varanasi Development Authority vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devendra Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri B.N. Singh for the respondent workman..

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an award of the labour Court dated 11.6.2001 passed in Adjudication Case No. 90 of 1999.

The reference reads as hereunder:

Kya Sevayojakon dwara apne mahila shramik Shrimati Shail Kumari Devi Patni Shri Amarnath pad survey khalasi ki seyayen dinank 14.1.1999 se samapt kiya jana ucmt tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahin to vivadit shramik kya hitlabh/anutosh pane ki adhikarini hai evam kin anya vivrano sahit.

The facts of the, case are that the respondent-workman, Smt. Shail Kumari Devi was taken into service in the year 1989 under the dying in harness rules as her husband, who was in employment had died. It is recorded in the award that in the year 1991 she was regularised and she was made permanent as a survey Khalasi. In the year 1994 while she was in employment, she complained to some higher authorities about the harassment, which was being meted out to her. The authorities suspended her on 28.8.1998 and set up a domestic enquiry against her, she was given a show cause notice on 14.12.1998 and before she could give her reply to the show cause notice her services were terminated on 14.1.1999. The workman was given a charge-sheet, which was also vague and not specific.

Before the labour Court the petitioner took a plea that the petitioner was not an industry. Paragraph 10 of the written statement is quoted here in below:

That notwithstanding above VDA is not covered by definition of industry and, therefore, no industrial dispute can be raised in connection with VDA.

The same plea has also been taken in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, which is also quoted herein below:

That the petitioner also submits that to prove that the Varanasi Development is an industry the burden was upon the respondent No. 2 by giving positive fact for coming to conclusion that the Varanasi Development Authority is an industry and in absence of this the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot have any application and accordingly the impugned award is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

Although a half-hearted attempt was made by the petitioner but the plea was neither pressed seriously before the labour Court nor before this Court. In similar circumstances the Hon''ble Apex Court was pleased to grant compensation to workman where the provisions of Section 6-N were violated, reference may be heard to Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar.(sic) There is also no evidence on record, to show that the petitioner is not an industry.

After examining the entire matter at length the kbour Court has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was vitiated and, therefore, gave an opportunity to the petitioner to establish its case before the labour Court. While examining the matter-the labour Court gave several opportunities, even opportunity to adduce evidence was also given which was not taken by the petitioner.

The workman on the other hand adduced evidence and it has come on evidence that the authorities concerned were harassing the workman concerned-

The labour Court conclusively come to the opinion that the charges, which were being made against the workman were not established. The charge that she was not performing her duties was not proved. The charge that she had remained absent from duty was also not proved because the employer did not produce any evidence on record to show that her salary was being deducted for unauthorized absence or that any action was taken against her for her unauthorized absence.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has however argued that even though it may not have been established by way of any evidence that the petitioner was an industry, the fact remains that the petitioner is an industry. The other point raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the workman had approached the departmental appellate authority and, therefore, it was not open to her to seek a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-workman has, however, argued that UV findings of fact have all been recorded in favour of the workman and no charge has been spelled out or established against her.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and having perused the material on record, I am of the view that the award of the labour Court contains no error of law. The labour Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent workman was not an educated person and, therefore, she had perhaps wrongly approached the top authority directly for which he has imposed the punishment of one adverse entry. Since there is no finding on the fact whether the respondent workman was gainfully employed or not, it would only be appropriate to as and her 50% of the back wages. The amounts paid to her under the orders of this Court u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act will be adjusted by the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the respondent informs the Court that the respondent workman has been working all along and the petitioner has been taking work from her. The respondent workman will be reinstated as per the award.

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.