RAGHVENDRA TEWARI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.4.2008 passed in Adjudication Case No. 183 of 2001, which was published on the notice board on 20.3.2009. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager to manage the work in the department. It is stated by the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Cattle Guard on daily wages in the year 1994 and he was receiving Rs. 1,550/- per month. He worked up till 31.10.1999. On 1.11.1999 without any show cause and payment of retrenchment compensation, his services were terminated. He was also not paid wages for the period April, 1999 to October, 1999 for which he instituted proceedings for payment of wages under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and prayed that wages for seven months may be paid to him. After disengagement of the petitioner, he raised industrial dispute. Before the Conciliation Officer, the parties failed to reach any compromise. The State Government thereafter referred the dispute by means of reference dated 30.6.2001, amended vide order dated 20.7.2004. Notices were issued to the parties. Written statement was filed by the petitioner stating therein that he has worked for more than 240 days. He was engaged in the year 1994 and he continued up till 31.10.1999. At the time of his disengagement, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him, therefore, disengagement of the petitioner is illegal. The employers put in appearance and they also filed objection to the written statement and stated that the reference is bad in law and the establishment of the employers does not fall within the definition of industry and is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the department runs various schemes for maintaining ecological balance and a particular staff is engaged to run the scheme. If the work is extra, then daily wage labourers are engaged, who work in the said project. It was also stated that from 1.4.1999 after his disengagement, the petitioner has not worked in the department at all and he himself stopped coming to the department. He did not present himself at any point of time for doing work. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end as and when the project came to an end. The petitioner led evidence in his support by filing certain documents and he examined himself and stated that he has worked continuously from 1994 up till March, 1999. From April, 1999 to October, 1999, he did not get wages, therefore, he instituted a separate case for the same and salary was ordered to be paid along with compensation. Against the said order, the employers went before the District Judge and the District Judge also dismissed the appeal and thereafter a cheque of the decreed amount was handed over to the petitioner. No evidence was led from the side of the opposite parties, neither anybody appeared to cross-examine the petitioner. The opposite parties also did not file any affidavit in support of their contention.

(2.) Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Industrial Tribunal could not have relied upon case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 109 FLR 826 and on that basis could have not denied reinstatement of the petitioner. The principles laid down in Umadevi's case are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner happens to be a workman and provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act") are applicable in the case of the petitioner and since no retrenchment compensation was paid, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. The order for payment of retrenchment compensation by the Tribunal is illegal on account of the fact that subsequent to the disengagement payment of retrenchment compensation will not validate the retrenchment order. He has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Gyanendra Dutt Trivedi v. Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow and another., 2009 121 FLR 353

(3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis for certain project. As and when the project came to an end, the petitioner's employment also came to an end. The petitioner could not have been continued beyond the project. Various schemes are run by the forest department for maintaining ecological balance. The petitioner was engaged in one of such scheme on daily wage basis. Submission is that such persons, who are engaged on daily wage basis, have no right for reinstatement as after the project comes to an end, the opposite parties cannot allow such persons to continue any more. He has relied upon the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh., 2012 132 FLR 500.