KICHHA SUGAR COMPANY LTD. Vs. TARA CHAND MAHTOLIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order/award dated 24.9.1992 passed in Adjudication Case No. 97 of 1990 by the Labour Court, Haldwani.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a Sugar Company owned and controlled by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Lucknow. It employed permanent as well as seasonal employees for running the business of sugar factory. Out of the seasonal workmen, some are engaged on daily wages and others as casual workmen to meet the emergent situation. The respondent No. 1, Tara Dutt Mahtoliya was employed on daily wages during the season 1982 -83 till 1985 -86. While he was working as a Watchman in the intervening night of 25/26 of October 1987, a theft took place in the residential colony whereafter the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated on 27.10.1987. The termination was made due to the negligence in duty on the part of respondent No. 1. It appears that respondent No. 1 raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Haldwani (respondent No. 2) who gave its award dated 24.9.1992 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition) whereby respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated in service with back wages. It is alleged in the writ petition that respondent No. 1 was not a regular employee of the petitioner -company. The petitioner -company has filed copy of the statement (copy Annexure -2 to the writ petition) of respondent No. 1 regarding the incident of theft and hours of his duties. Although the award given by the respondent No. 2 is challenged, it is stated in the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 was re -employed in pursuance of the impugned award vide order dated 9.10.1992 (copy Annexure -3 to the writ petition). It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner -company is not liable to make payment of back wages for the period 27.10.1987 to 8.10.1992 for which the respondent No. 1 had done no work with the petitioner -company.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter -affidavit, rejoinder -affidavit filed by the parties along with the annexures annexed thereto.