JARNAIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against the same award i.e. award dated 19.09.1988 given by Presiding officer labour court U.P. Ghaziabad in adjudication case No. 31 of 1980. First writ petition has been filed by the workman and the second by the employer. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the employer Harig India Ltd. terminating the services of Jarnail Singh its workman/Assistant foreman w.e.f. 11.11.1978 was just and valid or not. The labour Court held that retrenchment was illegal and unjust accordingly reinstatement was directed, however, back wages were totally denied on the ground that the workman was doing his own business and the said fact had been admitted by him in his statement dated 04.02.1987 also.

(2.) IN support of the writ petition filed by the workman in the year 1989, he filed his own affidavit in which his age was shown as 41 years. Accordingly, now he must be 62 years i.e. beyond the age of superannuation.

(3.) IN para 12 of the writ petition filed by the employer it was mentioned that "the Labour Inspector had made an inspection and prepared inspection report. Photo copy of the inspection report is attached as Annexure "6" to the writ petition. In this report the Labour Inspector has mentioned that Respondent No. 2 had employed a Fitter on a salary of Rs. 600/ - per month, a Welder at a salary of Rs. 600/ - per month and a Turner at a salary of Rs. 460/ - per month. In fact there are many more workers in the factory of Respondent No. 2 who were not present at the time of inspection and whose names have not been deliberately mentioned in the records of Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is making huge profits from his business at lest Rs. 10,000/ - per month".