w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Baby Glass Works v/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others

    Writ-C No. 15104 of 2016

    Decided On, 17 March 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR

    For the Petitioner: Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

2. This Petition has been filed assailing the order of Labour Court by which the Opposite Party No.2 has been directed to be reinstated having held termination of service dated 6.9.2013 illegal and the findings so returned on the basis of the relevant documents and the list which was produced before the Labour Court and noticing the fact that the Employer's own Witness namely Chhote Kashyap accepted the Opposite Party No.2 to be working and employed by the Petitioner.

3. An argument has been advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as per the reference, the Tribunal had to record working of 240 days of the Workman and this finding should come in relation to the retrenchment of the Workman as to form a period prior to the said date of retrenchment.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that once the Petitioner's own Witness before the Tribunal has got recorded his statement to the effect that Opposite Party/contesting Respondent No.2 had been seen working in the establishment of the Petitioner, the very argument of the Petitioner, that he was never employed by the Petitioner, falls on the ground. Secondly, he argues that in view of the list that, was produced before the Tribunal in which the name of Respondent No.2 was there along with 97 other Employes of the establishment with the details of the time period for which they were employed, the finding regarding 240 days though technically is not mentioned as such, but stands complied with as the working has been found to be genuine and rightful from 1993 till 2013. He has further submitted that a conclusive finding has come to be returned with regard to working and non resumption of services of the answering Respondent to the effect that the stand taken by the Petitioner establishment that the answering Respondent was not an Employee working with him was untrue as conciliation proceeding was held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Firozabad and in the minutes thereof, dated 21.9.2013, 4.10.2013 and 21.10.2013 it had clearly come to be recorded that Mukesh Babu, the answering Respondent was working with the Petitioner establishment and Petitioner was not ready to restore him back into service. It is argued that it was a fact duly recorded in the minutes of Conciliation proceedings held between Labour Union and the Petitioner establishment and it has come to be duly approved by the Tribunal that until 16.9.2013 when the services of the Employees working with the Petitioner establishment were terminated the answering Respondent was very much working. It is thus contended that there is no justification not to restore the answering Respondent back in service while services of other similarly placed Employees were restored and therefore, there is no error in the award of the Labour Court which may warrant interference.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the Bar, I find the issue as per the reference before the Tribunal, was whether the answering Respondent was whether employed with the Petitioner establishment or not and whether the answering Respondent had continued to work for 240 days prior to the termination of service on 16.9.2013 and whether it was lawful to dispense with the services of the answering Respondent.

6. This above issue has stood duly answered both in the discussion part and the finding part of the award of the Tribunal. Sri Chhote Kashyap son of late Prem Chandra Kashyap, who had been produced as Employer Witness before the Industrial Tribunal accepted in his testimony given on 2.5.2015 that he had seen the answering Respondent to be working in the Petitioner's factory. He also admitted that there was a strike by the labours in the year 2013 and answering Respondent was also participating in the strike. He also claimed that 98 Employees were removed from the roll of the factory out of which 95 Employees were taken back and three Employees were not taken back. He also confessed that there was conciliation/compromise held in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner and factory owner's son Vikas Mittal had participated in the talks and agreed to take all the Employees back except three Employees namely Kailash, Naim and answering Respondent. The Tribunal in its ultimate finding has come to record quite categorically that the list that has been annexed along with schedule 9/B-(2) contained names of 98 Employees which included the name of answering Respondent and that in the minutes of compromise talks held in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, dated 21.9.2013, 4.10.2013 and 21.10.2013 it has come to be mentioned that the answering Respondent was working on a post of 'Jagaiya' in Petitioner establishment and Petitioner was not ready to take him back into service.

7. Thus, the finding returned by the Tribunal is that while the answering Respondent has been found to be working in the Petitioner establishment, the Petitioner was not justified in submitting that the answering Respondent was not in service of its establishment and also the Petitioner's establishment could not give any cogent and convincing reason as to why Petitioner did not restore the services of answering Respondent while restoring the services of 95 Employees of Petitioner's establishment as a result of talks held in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner.

8. Having held thus above the Tribunal came to hold that the termination of service of the answering Respondent was in violation of Section 6(n) of Industrial Disputes Act and that the services of answering Respondent were liable to be restored.

9. In vie

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

w of the above, therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the award. Even otherwise it is a settled law that admission is best piece of evidence and if the Employer's own Witness admitted that answering Respondent was working with the establishment of the Petitioner, there was no reason not to take him back into service while other similarly placed Employees were taken back into service. The Tribunal is therefore, fully justified in passing the award in favour of the answering Respondent. 10. Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
O R