EXECUTIVE ENG. CSD AND ORS. Vs. UMESH MAHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are heard together as the similar facts and legal contentions would arise for our consideration. The Appellants, the Executive Engineer, CSD and Chief Engineer of Ram Ganga Dam Project, Kalagarh and the State of U.P. through Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, questioning the correctness of the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the Awards being ID No. 209/1988 and Reference Case No. 218/1993 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun and Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow respectively.

(2.) In Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010, the industrial dispute at the instance of the Respondent-workman got referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute between the parties with regard to the justification of termination/removal of workman by the Appellants. The Labour Court registered the references, given opportunity to both the parties to file their claim and counter claim and after conducting an inquiry recorded a finding of fact on the points of dispute referred to it holding that the termination order passed against the concerned workman is not justified. The said finding of fact is based on the pleadings and appreciation of material evidence on record. The correctness of the said finding is challenged before the High Court urging the ground that the said finding of fact is contrary to the factual and legal position that the concerned workmen have been appointed on temporary basis against the Project work undertaken by the Appellants for construction of the Dam in the year 1968, after the project work was over their services were terminated by the Appellants, that was the subject matter of dispute, the Labour Court without examining the factual aspect of the fact that the project work has come to an end, therefore, there is no work to employ the concerned workmen, therefore, they were retrenched after complying with the provisions and conditions laid down in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court after adverting to the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties has examined the correctness of the findings of fact recorded in the Awards by the Labour Court. The High Court has referred to the fact that on 8.05.2006, by an interim measure, it directed the Appellants herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was required to be paid to the workman without furnishing security, which has been received by the workman and consequently, partly allowed the petition and the Award was modified to the extent that the Appellants will reinstate the concerned workman on or before 10.03.2009 within four weeks from the date of 6.02.2009 including the back wages that has not been paid and further directed to reinstate the workmen and upon reinstatement, the workman is entitled to current wages. That order of the High Court is challenged in Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010 before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010 invited our attention to the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court to show that the said finding is erroneous in law. Our attention was drawn to the Award passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 209/1988 wherein the Labour Court noticed that the High Court, on an earlier occasion, between the same parties, vide its judgment and order dated 25.09.2003 partly allowed the writ petition, filed by the Respondent herein, setting aside that portion of the Award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court had refused to reinstate the concerned workman in service along with back wages and remanded the matter back to the trial court for decision afresh with a further direction to the Labour Court that it should decide: (1) whether the disputed Project is still going on or not And (2) whether other workmen situated similar to the concerned workman therein are still working in the department or not and whether any person junior to the concerned workman has been adjusted on any other post On such remand, the Labour Court again examined the case afresh and answered the said questions against the Appellants herein holding as hereunder: