STATE OF U P Vs. CHANDRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was dismissed in limine on 21.12.1999 by the following order:- "HEARD. No case is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." The said order was challenged by the petitioner before Supreme Court in the form of Civil Appeal No.5553 of 2002. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the above order and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the same by a reasoned order. Thereafter, petition was admitted and notice was issued to the workman through order dated 11.09.2003. Thereafter, workman filed counter affidavit. This writ petition is directed against award dated 18.01.1999 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No.298 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Chandrika, respondent No.1 in this writ petition from the post of Chaukidar/watchman w.e.f. 15.02.1988 was just and valid or not. Through impugned award, labour court held that termination was bad and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The entire award is in 13 lines (in addition to four lines in which reference has been quoted). It is mentioned in the impugned award that the workman filed written statement on affidavit stating that he was appointed on daily wage basis in August, 1983; that he had completed more than 240 days; that his termination was illegal and juniors to him were retained and after his termination new employees were also employed. Thereafter, it is mentioned that employer also filed written statement. Thereafter, it is mentioned in Para-4 that on 13.01.1999, the date fixed, employer remained absent and the workman filed affidavit (21-C) on which the workman was not cross-examined by the employer. Thereafter, in Para-5, which is the last paragraph, it is observed that "I give the award that workman Chandrika should be reinstated with continuity and all back wages should also be paid to him." This is no award in the eye of law. Absolutely no finding has been given that why termination was bad. Even while reciting pleadings of the workman, it is not mentioned that in what manner termination was stated to be bad. The only thing which is stated is that workman had worked for 240 days. Working for 240 days is not a magical formula, which renders the services interminable. Even in an ex parte judgment and award, some reasons are bound to be given. There is no mention in the impugned award that retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act was not paid. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent No.1 worked on daily wages basis from August 1984 to September, 1985 and that he left the work on his own in September, 1985. Same thing was stated in petitioner's written statement before the labour court. It was not stated by the workman that any procedure was followed before appointing him. Written statement filed by the workman is Annexure-2 to the writ petition in which he stated that he was not given any retrenchment compensation and his termination was in violation of Sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of U.P.I.D. Act. Workman did not file any document or any other evidence except his affidavit and written statement to show that he was working until 15.02.1988. In any case, even if it is assumed that retrenchment compensation was necessary to be paid but it was not paid to the workman at the time of termination of services still it was not necessary to grant reinstatement with full back wages, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner employer is Government where it is essential to follow some procedure before making appointment. In this regard, reference may be made to the following authorities: AIR 2006 SC 2113 "Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U. P." AIR 2006 SC 2427 "Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn v. Mamni" AIR 2008 SC 1955 "Sita Ram Vs. M.L.N.F. Training Institute" Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the petitioner employer to pay Rs.20,000/- as consolidated damages/compensation to the respondent no.1 in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages. This amount shall be paid or deposited before labour court within three months failing which two percent per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after three months till actual payment.