STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of UP. has approached this Court for quashing of the award dated 14.12.1999, by means of which, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, has directed reinstatement of respondent workman with back wages.

(2.) Brief background of the case as reflected on the writ petition is that Ram Lai son of Buddhu was engaged on daily wage basis in Social Forestry Scheme, proposal in respect of which was accepted by the State Government and fund had been allotted. It has been stated that as per said scheme land of Gaon Sabha is obtained, open which plantation is carried out by petitioners, and such scheme continues for about three years and at the moment, trees are matured, the land in question is given back to Gaon Sabha, and the scheme in question comes to an end. One such scheme had been sanctioned at Kaptanganj Nursery situated in Harraiaya Range. It has been stated that after development of said Range, Basti, land in question was given back to block concerned, and thereafter, State Government had no concern with the same. In respect to respondent workman it has been contended that after the scheme came to an end, he was assigned the work at Bhiura Scheme, from where on his own accord, he voluntarily abandoned the job. It has also been asserted that after 1988 at no point of time respondent workman approached the petitioner for providing employment to him. Thereafter, it appears that he applied for conciliation and the same having failed; State Government in its turn referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication of the industrial dispute. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent workman. From the side of petitioner also written statement supported by affidavit was filed. One Gopal Ojha had appeared as employer's witness. Thereafter, impugned award has been passed, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) On presentation of writ petition, this Court stayed operation of the impugned award. Thereafter, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent workman mentioning therein that his work and conduct had been satisfactory, and there had been no complaint, whatsoever, against him. It has also been mentioned that by registered letter request was made to permit the respondent workman to permit him to discharge his duties, but at no point of time any work was assigned to him, and even during conciliation proceedings no such offer was made. Respondent-workman has laid much emphasis on the feet that incorrect statement has been made that he left the work at his own, rather the fact is that his services were terminated illegally, and in this background, it has been prayed that no interference be made by this Court.