STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of U.P. is challenging award dated 25.06.2012, passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar. A reference was made by the State Government whether the termination of the workman by the employer was justified or/and legal. If not, the workman is entitled to get what reliefs/benefits. In brief, the case of the workman, inter alia, is that the workman is unskilled labour. He was engaged by the employer as beldar from 20.10.1993 as daily wager and he was allowed to work as Beldar from 20.10.1993 to 04.09.2002, however, all of a sudden, on 05.09.2002, he was orally told not to come on work. Further stated that workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, employer did not follow provision of Section 6-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, therefore, termination of his services is bad in law.

(2.) In response to the notice issued by the Labour Court, petitioners/employer herein filed written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that some contracts were awarded to different contractors and workman had worked as worker of one of the contractor and was never engaged by the department. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against the department.

(3.) Learned Labour Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15th September, 2011, was pleased to hold that workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, his services could have been terminated after following provisions of Section 6-N of the Act read with Rule 42 of the Rules. Since Section 6-N and Rule 42 were violated, therefore, termination was bad in law and ultimately learned Labour Court allowed the reference with the direction to the employer/petitioners herein to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits, however, workman would not be entitled for the backwages from the date he was not allowed to work. Feeling aggrieved, State of U.P./employer has filed present writ petition.