Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2002
  6. /
  7. January

Mahak Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 January, 2002

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award of the labour court I, Meerut in adjudication case No. 205 "of 1993 dated 5.9.1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 14.12.1993 have referred the following dispute for adjudication before the labour court.
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh egd flg iq= Jh lq[kchj flag dh lsok,a fnukad 19-9-91 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl fgrykHk vFkok vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
3. After affording opportunity to the respective parties, i.e.. employer and workman concerned, the labour court has arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman are not proved and he has been punished in excessive as compared to the charges. The labour court further found that the ends of justice will meet if the employee punished with that no wages to be paid during the period of suspension except what has already been paid as subsistence allowance and further that no back wages till the date of award. In this view of the matter, the labour court has directed the reinstatement without back wages except what has already been paid as subsistence allowance. It is this part of the award, which is being challenged by the petitioner workman by means of this writ petition.
4. I have heard Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this writ petition and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents. The argument advanced by Sri Siddharth is that since the labour court once comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman were not found proved and that he has been punished in excessive as compared to the charges, the labour court has erred in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the back wages till the date of award. Sri Siddharth further submitted that in view of the discussion under the award, the aforesaid finding denying the workman's wages before the date of award is perverse.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by Sri Siddharth, but 1 am unable to agree with him. This is settled that even if two views are possible and one of them has been taken by the authority then same cannot be a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from above, the Division Bench of this Court has held that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned. In this view of the matter, the award of the labour court does not require any interference or interpretation.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, parties shall bear their own costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mahak Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 January, 2002
Judges
  • A Kumar