MUIR MILLS UNIT OF N T C U P LTD Vs. SWAYAM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA
LAWS(SC)-2006-12-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on December 01,2006

MUIR MILLS UNIT OF N.T.C.(U.P) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SWAYAM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GURVINDER SINGH SAINI VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHRAPARA COLLEGE VS. SUNIL KUMAR KHAN [LAWS(CAL)-2008-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
CATALYST INDIA PRIVATE LTD VS. BANWARI ALIAS BANZARU MUKRAM RAJBHOR [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
SIVARAJ S VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU FOREST CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-401] [REFERRED TO]
S. PANCHATCHARAM VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-679] [REFERRED TO]
S.P.SHARMA VS. I.F.C.I. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-272] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHIUDDIN ASHRAF VS. CENTRAL ELECTRONICS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GROUP 4S SECURITY SERVICES VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-242] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION VS. DHAONDU SHANTARAM TULASKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-146] [REFERRED TO (S.C.) : (2007) 1 SCC 491 8]
RAJEEV KHURANA VS. PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-301] [REFERRED TO.]
AMARNATH MENOKODATH REMANAN VS. CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY DESIGN [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-337] [REFERRED TO]
HOLY FAMILY ENGLISH MEDIUM L.P. SCHOOL VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-180] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MADURAI ELECTRICITY DISTN CIRCLE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. R CHITHRABAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-685] [REFERRED TO]
C GUPTA VS. GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VS. A.S. RAGHAVENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2024-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
GIRVARSINGH RAWAT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. RADHIKA SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-294] [REFERRED TO,]
BHIM SAIN VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-346] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. INDER JEET SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-409] [REFERRED TO]
BHUBANESHWAR MALLICK VS. EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED AND [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY MEERUT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-416] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF LORETO CONVENT TARA HALL SCHOOL VS. SHARU GUPTA [LAWS(HPH)-2023-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
V RAVICHANDRAN VS. MANAGEMENT M R F LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-336] [REFERRED TO]
NOVARTIS INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
GROUP CAPTAIN (T.S) RAJEEV VARSHNEY VS. INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-300] [REFERRED TO]
BANSIDHAR BARIK VS. INDIAN COUNCIL OF PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-449] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT KUMAR VS. NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-384] [REFERRED TO]
S K SHARMA VS. SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANSHU BHATT VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-228] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES VS. DSIDC AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-404] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE COR LTD VS. DHONDU SHANTARAM TULASKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2013-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
SOLITAIRE MACHINE TOOLS LTD VS. HARISH M. VAGHELA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-522] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR KAUSHIK VS. THE BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-175] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. SANTOSH KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE BALESHWAR PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-688] [REFERRED TO]
HEM SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-302] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHIKSHA BHARATI SENIOR VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEEP KHANNA VS. PRINCIPAL RESIDENT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-179] [REFERRED TO,]
Shiv Dayal Dharamshala Trust VS. Leela Dutt Sharma [LAWS(HPH)-2010-12-221] [REFERRED TO]
R.B. PATEL VS. PACHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
SH. SATISH JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-206] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SIJUA VS. THEIR WORKMAN DILIP KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
PINAKI GHOSH VS. INTERNATION AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION VS. TRIBHUBAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA BERI VS. AIR INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-465] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL AHMAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-240] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF SES, BABA NEBHRAJ VS. RAJKUMARI KHANCHANDANI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-299] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. MANOHAR KUMAR KESWANI [LAWS(CAL)-2007-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PRASIDH PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-229] [REFERRED TO]
RINA MUKERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
VINEER TANEJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN JHA VS. T M APARTMENTS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT VS. RARMBAI VIJAY SHENDE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD. VS. GOVT. OF NCT [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-496] [REFERRED TO]
YASMEEN SAYED VS. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-230] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MULTAN SEWA SAMITI CHARITABLE EYE HOSPITAL VS. P O LABOUR COURT [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-531] [REFERRED TO]
MS. SHASHIKARAN R. SHRIVASTAVA C/O. ASHWINI, B/02, SHRISTI COMPLEX, SECTOR 5, MIRA ROAD (E), THANE VS. M/S. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. TIME OF INDIA BUILDING, DR. D.N. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 001 [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-416] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. S.M.V.D. UNIVERSITY, KATRA [LAWS(J&K)-2016-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
PETER RAMESH KUMAR VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARSHALLS POWER AND COMMUNICATION INDIA P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-406] [REFERRED TO]
SREEJA J T VS. MANAGER KVUP SCHOOL [LAWS(KER)-2012-5-225] [REFERRED TO]
E.S.I.C. MEDICAL OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION VS. E.S.I.C. [LAWS(SC)-2013-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHI SANKARA HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
SALIM ALI CENTRE FOR ORNITHOLOGY & NATURAL HISTORY VS. MATHEW K. SEBASTIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-261] [REFERRED TO]
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD VS. GOVT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 2 KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONYS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. ROHINI GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-229] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY - INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY & 1 VS. MANOJ AMBARAM KAHAR & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-184] [REFERRED TO]
V.SRINIVASULA REDDY S/O V.SUBBA REDDY VS. JHARKHAND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-5-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R.Lakshmanan, J. - (1.)THE appellant in the present matter is Muir Mills a subsidiary of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. of State of Uttar Pradesh. THE respondent No.1 was offered appointment as Legal Assistant in the litigation section on a probation period of 1 year (in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560) on 04.06.1982. THE appointment letter stated that the said appointment was on a probationary basis. THE period of probation was set at one year from the date of joining. On 12.06.1982, the respondent No.1 joined his duties.
(2.)ON 23.11.1982, a letter was written by the Senior Legal Assistant to the General Manager of the Mill stating that respondent No.1 had completed 6 months of probation but was not able to understand fully the work of his post and stated that "His work is not up to the mark; therefore he is of no use to us". However, it was decided to give the respondent No.1 an opportunity to improve his performance. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent No.1 was orally informed about the above decision of the appellants.
On the expiry of the probation period of the respondent No.1, a letter dated 04.06.1983 was issued to the respondent No.1 stating that, "Your performance has not been found satisfactory and as such, you have failed to complete the probationary period successfully".

On 06.02.1985, respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by respondent No.2 the State of Uttar Pradesh, to the Labour Court in the following terms, "Is termination of the services of the workman Swayam Prakash Srivastava (son of Hori Lal Srivastava), Legal Assistant by the employers vide their order dated 04.06.1983 is right and/or legal? If not, the concerned workman is entitled to which benefit/relief and along with which other details."

(3.)ON 25.05.1987, the Labour Court delivered an award holding that, the respondent No.1 was a workman and the termination was illegal and that respondent No.1 has to be reinstated within a month of the order with backwages. The Labour court also observed that the Industrial adjudicator had no power to examine the validity of the termination of the services of a probationer before the completion of probation period. Aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the appellant preferred a writ petition being WP No.22193 before the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 25.05.1987. By an interim order dated 02.12.1987, the High Court stayed the operation of the award of the Labour Court subject to the deposit of one half of the decreed backwages. The appellant was also directed to continue to make payment of the future salary of respondent No.1 till further orders. The respondent No.1 was given the liberty to withdraw the backwages upon furnishing security. The future salary be withdrawn by respondent No.1 without any security. The appellants complied with the order of the High Court immediately. Muir Mills ceased to be operational in 1991. In the period 1992-1993, the appellants referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act ('SICA'). ON 05.02.2002 the National Textile Corporation (UP) Ltd, of which the appellants is a constituent entity was declared as a sick industrial company under the SICA and 9 of the 11 mills owned by the said company was directed to be closed.
On 01.11.2002, the High Court dismissed the writ petition No.22193 of 1987 holding that the High Court will not interfere with the order of the Labour court as the same has neither been shown to be perverse, nor suffering from any error of law. By letter dated 9/11.03.2004, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India approved the formal closure of Muir Mills.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.