Decided on January 02,2012

State of Uttarakhand and others Appellant
HUKUM SINGH Respondents


- (1.) Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/petitioners and Sri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the workman/opposite party.
(2.) The present writ petition assails the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 438 of 2009. It transpires that the workman worked from 3rd January, 1992 to 31st December, 1992 as a daily wager. After 12 years, the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was declined. The workman filed Writ Petition No. 256 (M/S) of 2005, which was allowed by a judgment dated 30th November, 2005. The High Court held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not justified in declining to refer the dispute and accordingly, directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the State Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute, namely, "whether the employer was justified in terminating the services of the workman? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"
(3.) The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that retrenchment compensation was not paid as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. On this conclusive evidence, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman but without any back wages. The employer, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.;

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