Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37914 of 2003 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru Technical Education Director U.P.V.Nagar Respondent :- Ram Bharat And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Miss. Bushra Maryam
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the award dated 30th December, 2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad in Industrial Dispute No. 36 of 2000.
In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the Appropriate Government under a Notification dated 27th April, 2000 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Sri Ram Bharat, son of Sri Bhagelu, by his employer with effect from 1.8.1998 is just and/or legal ? if not, then for what relief/benefit and other ancillary benefits he is entitled ?".
The workman submitted a claim before the Industrial Tribunal with assertion that he entered in service of the employer on 1st April, 1995 but was retrenched from service without adhering the condition precedent to do so as prescribed under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the workman, he was in continuous service of the employer and as such the retrenchment being in violation of the mandatory condition precedent is void ab initio.
In written, employer contested the claim with the observation that the workman was employed in a project and he was discontinued from service on completion of that. It was also stated that after 1st August, 1998, the workman, knowing it well that the project has been completed did not report on duty.
The Industrial Tribunal after examining the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the workman was in continuous service of the employer as defined under Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer is an Industry and the workman being retrenched from service was entitled to have protection under Section 6N. The Tribunal accordingly answered the reference in the terms that the retrenchment was illegal and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, instant petition for writ is preferred.
Suffice to mention that in compliance of the award the workman has already been reinstated in service much back in the year 2004.
On behalf of the employer, it is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appointment of the respondent was on contractual basis in a scheme and, therefore, he was not entitled to have protection under Section 6N of the Act of 1947 on completion of the project concerned. It is further stated that no occasion was there for Tribunal to award all consequential benefits including back wages without ascertaining the fact that whether the workman during the period interregnum was in any gainful employment or not.
On going through the record, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. True it is, in written case of the employer was that the appointment given to the workman was on contractual basis in a project but the stand so taken was not at all supported by any material. Nothing has been stated about the project in which the respondent was employed and about term of the project aforesaid. In absence of such material, learned Tribunal rightly relied upon the evidence adduced by the respondent workman about his employment with the Director (Technical Education). So far as the grant of back wages is concerned, suffice to mention that the same is a natural consequence, if retrenchment has been declared void by Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1253 held that a retrenchment effected in violation of the mandatory condition precedent, as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (pari materia to Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), is void ab initio and in that event, the presumption is that the retrenchment never came into existence. In the case in hand, the retrenchment effected by the employer is absolutely non-consequential and as such, the workman is entitled for the back wages and other consequential benefits.
For the reasons given above, no interference in the award impugned is warranted. The petition for writ is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 VMA (Govind Mathur, C.J.)