COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT RAJA MAHENDRA PRATAP PREM VIDHYALAYA INTER COLLEGE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Committee Of Management Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidhyalaya Inter College
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Shri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent prayed that the case may be decided finally at the admission stage without counter affidavit.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case no.33 of 2009, by which the termination of the respondent was declared as illegal. The Labour Court held that the workman is entitled to get the service related benefits after the date of his termination and he shall be treated in service throughout from the date of his termination.
The Labour Court directed that the workman shall not be entitled to receive any back wages from the date of his termination upto one day before passing of the impugned award.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the written statement, it was specific case of the petitioner that the Social Forestry Programme started by the Forest Department in the year 1990 for developing saplings, for which some money was given by the Forest Department. For that purpose, some workmen were engaged purely on daily wage basis. The respondent was also engaged and he was paid Rs. 350/- per month. The payment of wages was being made by the Social Forestry Department and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent. It was further submitted in the written statement that in the year 1994, after the closure of programme/project, no work was left for the respondent after June, 1994. It was further submitted in the written statement that respondent was never engaged after closure of the programme and no work was taken from the respondent after 1994. The reference order regarding date of termination order dated 30.09.1997 is bad.
However, it was mentioned in the written statement that the respondent had made an application under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages from September, 1996 to September, 1997. Same is under consideration. The respondent workman filed rejoinder affidavit in which he denied the facts mentioned in the written statement. It was mentioned by him in the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner himself was the appointing authority. He also denied the fact that the payment was not made directly from the Forest Department.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.