Court No.10
Reserved on 27.8.2021 Delivered on 25.10.2021
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14614 of 2012 Petitioner :- Vijay Pachauri Respondent :- The Presiding Officer Labour Court And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Narain,Gopal Narain,Sobhana Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
When the petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 16.8.2007, he raised an industrial dispute. The matter was thereafter referred to the Labour Court by a reference order dated 5.4.2008/28.7.2009 with the following reference :-
"D;k lsok;kstd }kjk Jfed Jh fot; ipkSjh iq= Jh oh0,u0 ipkSjh ¼xzkgd lsokbth½ dh lsok,a fnukad 16-08-2007 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \"
Thereafter when the award dated 8.8.2011 (published on 26.11.2011) was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner then the instant writ petition was filed.
The matter was heard and thereafter the petitioner and respondent no.2 had filed their written arguments as well. The arguments are made a part of the record.
The petitioner argued that the Labour Court had rejected the claim of the petitioner in a very cryptic manner. Before the Labour Court, written statements and the rejoinder affidavit were filed by the parties. Oral evidence were led by the parties and documentary evidence were also filed. However, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the award shows that from paragraph nos.1 to 9, the facts of the case of both the sides had been noted. In paragraph nos.10. and 11, the details of the documents which had been filed had been given and thereafter the Labour Court in paragraph nos.12 and 13 had stated about the oral statements when were recorded and were led by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, without dealing with the facts of the case; the evidence which had been led and the various arguments as had been made, only in two lines the Labour Court had held that the case had been fully examined and it was found that the termination was legal and justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that there was, thus, no application of mind and the Labour Court had failed to discuss/adjudicate the case on merits and had also not given any finding on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the various facts which had been narrated in the counter affidavit here in the writ petition could not be taken into account by this Court. He submitted that this was the settled law as was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, in reply, submitted that in the award there were findings of fact and those finding of facts could not be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (144) FLR 607 : M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey and the judgments of this Court rendered in Writ-C No.790 of 2017 (State of U.P. & Anr. vs. P.O. Labour Court & Anr.) vide order dated 15.11.2018 and Writ-C No.21014 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Pravesh & Anr.).
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the award, this Court definitely finds that the Labour Court had not analyzed the facts and the evidence which were brought before it. Only after narrating all the facts and the evidence which were led, it was simply in two lines held that the termination order was justified and that no interference was required. This, definitely, is not a manner in which a Labour Court should decide a case. It should have dealt with the facts of the case along with evidence which had been led and thereafter should have come to a proper conclusion after giving its own finding.
Under such circumstances, the Court finds that the award dated 8.8.2011 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is, accordingly, set-aside. The Adjudication Case No.39 of 2008 shall stand restored. It shall now be heard again and be decided on its own merits by the Labour Court within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, duly certified by the learned counsel of either of the party.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)