STATE OF U P Vs. JAI PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, State of U. P. through the Director, Kanpur Zoological Park Kanpur, has challenged the award dated 30th Mach, 1995 of the Labour Court III, U. P., Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 173 of 1991 in which the dispute was referred by the State under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. The reference was received by the labour court. The parties after notice exchanged the pleadings through their representatives and also adduced evidence. The employer raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the labour court to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute on the ground that the petitioner (Director Kanpur Zoological Park. Kanpur), is not an industry. This precise controversy has been decided by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22768 of 1989. Kanpur Prani Uddyan, Azad Nagar, Kanpur through its Director v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Kanpur and Anr., on 7.12.1995 and by another judgment passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28373 of 1992, State of U. P. through Secretary Forest Department, U. P.. Lucknow and Anr. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U. P., Kanpur and Ors., along with other connected writ petitions on 24.7.1996. Both these judgments of this Court have rejected the plea raised on behalf of the employer that the employer establishment is not an industry. According to the merits of the case, the workman concerned has set up a case that he has been dismissed from service with effect from 12.8.1986 and the charges levelled against him are not proved. This fact has been denied by the employer and the employer has said that to explain the charges before the concerned enquiry officer, the workman has raised a plea that he has not been served with the enquiry report, that no body has been deputed as enquiry officer, no formal charge-sheet has been served and in fact, he has not been served with the enquiry report. The labour court, after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties has arrived to the conclusion that the services of the workman having been terminated with effect from 12.8.1986, is illegal and without any valid reason. The labour court, therefore, directed the re-in~ statement of the workman. But so far as the back wages are concerned, the labour court awarded back wages for the period of the termination of the workman, i.e., with effect from 19.8.1986 to 19.8.1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that admittedly the workman had not worked during these days. In this view of the matter, he relied on the principle or 'no work no pay', therefore, he argued that the award of the labour court deserves to be modified. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the workman and I find that the award does not require any modification as the labour court itself has granted back wages only from the date of reference.

(2.) In view of what has been stated above this petition has no force and is dismissed.

(3.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.