- (1.) HEARD Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Upadhyay and Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the respondent -workman in Writ Petition No. 49835 of 2014, 49837 of 2014 and 49840 of 2014, 49838 of 2014 and 49834 of 2014, Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent -workman in Writ Petition No. 49839 of 2014 and 49822 of 2014.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that undisputedly petitioner is a University constituted U.P. State University Act, 1972 and service conditions of its employees are governed by its own statutes. The respondent -workmen were engaged on daily wage basis in the event of need of extra hands for a fixed period and after expiry of its period they were disengaged. Even if it is assumed that there was any technical breach of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) due to not giving one month's notice then in that situation, at best, the labour court could have awarded some compensation but reinstatement in service with full or partial back wages is not an appropriate relief. He further submits that the respondent -workmen have completely failed to establish that they were not engaged in any gainful employment after they were disengaged. He relies upon several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and a judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and other Vs. Raj Kumar and others, 2014 4 ADJ 320. He submits that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 326 of 2014 dated 13.1.2015 Jasveer Singh Vs. Haryana and the judgment in the case of Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2015 2 SCC 317 are clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in these judgments the controversy involved was with respect to a permanent employee and the effect of provisions of Section 6N, 6R and 6Q of the U.P. Act or Sections 25F and 25H of the Central Act, while in the present set of facts the only dispute involved is whether disengagement of the respondent -workmen without compliance to the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Act would automatically result in their reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. He submits that both the judgements Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinguishable on facts. He submits that at best the labour court could have awarded some compensation to the respondent -workmen for the alleged reason of technical breach of provisions of Section 6N of the Act by the petitioners. Sri Anurag Khanna further relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of L. Robert D souza v. Executive Engineer Southern Railway and another, 1982 1 SCC 645 (para -27), Ratan Singh v. Union of India and another, 1997 11 SCC 396 (para -3), Haryana Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Fakir Chand and others, 2003 8 SCC 248, (para -4 to 7), Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. DIVN and another v. Digambar Rao and others, 2004 8 SCC 262 (para 20 to 24), Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2004 2 SCC 130, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, 2005 5 SCC 591 (para 4 and 8), Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others,2006 2 ESC 192 (SC), Municipal Counsel, Sujanpur v. Surendra Kaur, 2006 5 SCC 173, M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Srivastava, 2006 2 SCC 702 (para 15,17 and 18), Haryana State Electrics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mani, 2006 9 SCC 434 (para 25), J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, 2007 2 SCC 433 (para 15 to 18), Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahay and another, 2006 11 SCC 684, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. Ms. Joshi, 2007 9 SCC 353, Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261, Talwara Co -perative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, 2008 9 SCC 486 (para 4,8,9 and 14), Madhya pradesh Administration v. Tribunal, 2007 9 SCC 748 (Para 6,7,10 and 13), Muri Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another, 2007 1 SCC 491, C. Balchandran and others v. State of Kerla and others, 2009 3 SCC 179 (para 17 and 18), Incharge Officer and another v. Shanker Shetty, 2010 9 SCC 126, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seat and others, 2010 6 SCC 773 (para 9 and 10), BSNL v. Man Singh, 2012 1 SCC 558 (para 4 and 5) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Geetam Singh,2013 2 ESC 233 (SC) (para 22 and 27), BSNL v. Bhuramal, Civil Appeal No. 10957 of 2013 decided on 11th December, 2013 (para 9,23,24 and 25) and a judgment of this Court the case of Raj Kumar.
(3.) SRI Siddharth Khare submits that there is no distinction between a daily wager or a permanent employee for the purposes of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Workman is a workman whether he is a daily wager or a permanent employee. Termination of service of the respondent -workmen without compliance to the due procedure of law particularly Section 6N of the Act renders the order of termination of service to be void ab initio. The necessary consequence of such termination of service is the reinstatement in service with full or partial back wages. The findings recorded by the labour court in the impugned award with regard to the continuous service of more than 240 days and non engagement of the respondent workmen in any gainful employment, are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in Writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192. (para 9 and 10) Sri Khare further submits that termination of service of respondent -workmen without compliance of Section 6N of the Act renders the employer liable to reinstate the workmen in service with full back wages. In support of his submission he relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasveer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 decided on 13th January, 2015 (para 3 and 4). On the strength of this judgment, he submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. He further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2015 2 SCC 317.;