U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND UDAI BHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 3-workman was appointed as Turner in M/s Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Limited on 9.4.1981 and was working continuously as such. His services were illegally terminated on 30.6.1991. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and a reference was made on 23.4.1985 to the Labour Court. Meanwhile, the U.P. State Sugar Corporation-petitioner acquired the Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Limited, Deoria under The U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act). An impleadment/substitution application was filed on 14.8.1985 by the petitioner before the labour Court seeking impleadment of U.P. State Sugar Corporation having its Unit at Chitauni, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and substitution of M/s Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Limited. No objections to the said application were filed and the application was allowed on 24.2.1986. After hearing both the parties the labour Court gave an award-dated 29.3.1988 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from 30.6.1982 with continuity in service and entire back wages.

(2.) The dispute raised by the petitioner-Corporation before the labour Court was that, since the Corporation came into existence in 1984 as such the Corporation was not accountable of any past liability, and that the respondent No. 3-workman had not completed 240 days of continuous services contemplated under Section 2-G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such the provisions of Section 6-N were not attracted. The labour Court while passing the award arrived at the conclusion that Corporation was accountable for all the disputes pending with regard to the past employer and the orders passed in the pending cases before any Court of law shall be enforceable against the Corporation. Regarding validity of the termination order, the labour Court held that the services of respondent No. 3-workman had been wrongly terminated and it violated the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act in terminating the services of the workman.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present writ petition against the award-dated 29.3.1988. A conditional interim order was passed on 24.7.1990 by this Court with the condition that the workman be taken in service within a period of three weeks from the date of the order and be paid wages month by month regularly. The respondent No. 3-workman was reinstated on 16.8.1990 and thereafter continued to work.