U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PANCHHI LAL
LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-92
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 01,2002

U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
Panchhi Lal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the U. P. State Electricity Board, the employer -petitioner, challenges the award of the Labour Court IV, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, dated 12th March, 1995, passed in Adjudication Case No. 256 of 1989.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication : .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence before the labour court. The case set up by the concerned workman was that he was employed with effect from 6th January, 1986 as driver, to drive School Bus and he has worked up to 5th January, 1987 without there being any complaint regarding his work and conduct and inspite of his work being satisfactory, his services were arbitrarily terminated with effect from 6th January, 1987. No notice, no charge -sheet has ever been served on the concerned workman and the employer have also not complied with the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') inasmuch as though the concerned workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months but he has not been paid any retrenchment compensation.
(3.) THE employer have set up the case that the concerned workman was employed on different post in the leave vacancy for a fixed period and after expiry of the aforesaid period, his services were automatically terminated. At the moment, when the services of the concerned workman was terminated, there was no vacant post of driver. In this way, the services of the concerned workman were not terminated but it has come to an end automatically. With regard to the concerned workman's claim that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, the employer has given details. According to that details, the concerned workman has worked for 176 days. Therefore, it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the 'Central Act', or Section 6N of the Act.;


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