1. By the impugned award dated 06.05.2011 the labour court has directed the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent workman in service. The respondent workman has also been allowed 50% of the backwages since 24.10.1993 and "All benefits which were available to him when he was in service".
2. The only submission of Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents do not have the right to continue on the post since he was a temporary workman.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent workman Sri Phool Singh Yadav has taken the Court through various finding returned by the labour court to contend that the petitioner had been in continuous service from eight years and his services were arbitrarily terminated. The award of the labour court was lawful and just.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The reference made before the labour court as recited in the impugned award is reproduced below:
"2. Whether the action of the management of Nothern Railway Allahabad in not allowing duties to Sri Jagrup with effect from 24.10.93 is justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled for?"
6. The following facts were established by pleadings and evidence before the labour court. The petitioner had worked continuously for more than eight 24821years as a gang man from 1984-1993. He was working in the scale of Rs. 775-1025 with effect from 1988. The petitioner was directed to join his new place of posting at Ludhiana in pursuance of the order dated 16.10.1993. The respondent workman presented himself before the authorities at Ludhiana and made over the transfer order to them. Ludhiana authorities directed him to Jammu Tawi. However both the railway authorities at Ludhiana and Jammu Tawi declined to permit him to join duties as his name was not in the transfer list. Thereafter the petitioner ran from pillar to post but was not allowed to join duties and effectively stood terminated.
7. The petitioner employer could not dispute the duty pass issued to the petitioner for the month of December, 1993. The petitioner/ employer defended its action on the foot that the petitioner "had surrendered his services in the year 1992" which was disbelieved by the labour court.
8. Petitioner employer before the labour court asserted that the respondent workman ought to have raised objections before the superior rail authorities when he was not permitted to join duties at his place of posting.
9. The labour court found that aforesaid contradictory stands made by the petitioner-employer, discredited its defence.
10. The respondent workman appeared before the labour court and deposed that he had taken the transfer letter and presented himself before the railways authorities at Ludhiana. The railway authorities at Ludhiana declined to admit him to duties on the pretext that his name was not in the transfer list and forwarded the letter to the railways authority at Jammu. The petitioner went to report to the railways authorities at Jammu but to no avail.
11. The labour court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the respondent workman found him to be a credible witness. The credibility of the respondent workman could not be impeached by the employer. The deposition of the respondent workman was consistent with the duly proved documents in the records.
12. On the foot of the aforesaid narrative, the labour court found that the action of the petitioner employer in not providing work to the respondent workman with effect from 24.10.1993 was unlawful. The termination of his services was in the likeness of "removal of service by oral order". The action of the employer was found to be vitiated. The petitioner was liable to be reinstated in service. A direction was issued directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for Railways that the workman is a casual labour and not entitled to any relief is misconceived to say the least. The solemn purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is to prevent exploitation of workmen. Nomenclature of the post is not conclusive of the nature of the work being done by workman. It was established by applicable standards of evidence before the labour court that the respondent workmen had worked continuously for a period of eight years prior to arbitrary and illegal termination of his services. The defence of the petitioner was rightly found to be contradictory and evidences were not found to be worthy of credit.
14. This Court is always reluctant to substitute findings of fact made upon appraisal of evidence made the trial court with its own findings while exercising writ jurisdiction. In this case the findings of the labour court are impeccable. The defence of the petitioner/ employer was found to be contradictory and rightly disbelieved.
15. The actions of the petitioner employer which stood established before the court below were not only arbitrary but exploitative. The railways are model employers and the Court cannot countenance such unfair trade practices or exploitative actions against a helpless workman.
16. The actions of the employer were most arbitrary and it showed utmost apathy to the plight of the workman of the lowest class.
16. In the writ petition the petitioners have asserted that the respondent No. 1 has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. The pleading has been denied by the workman in the counter affidavit. It could not be stated on behalf of the petitioner that this plea was taken before the court below. The petitioner has failed to bring relevant pleadings and documents in the record of the court below in regard to the respondent being gainfully employed. The pleadings of the employer are disbelieved.
17. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the labour court. However in view of findings made in the preceding part of the narrative that the action of the employer was exploitative, this Court holds that the respondent workman is entitled to 70% of the backwages in the interest of justice. Subject to this modification the labour court award is upheld.
19. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.10.2021 Nadeem