- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 6-3-2000 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U. P. Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 340 of 1990. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of the employer petitioner terminating the services of its workman Faridan respondent No. 2 with effect from 2-3-1989 was proper and legal or not. Labour Court held that termination order was in violation of Section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. I. D. Act) as no retrenchment compensation was paid. Ultimately reinstatement with full back wages was directed by the Labour Court. The case of the workman was that he was appointed in the petitioner's concern in 1983 on the post of Belder and worked on the said post uninterruptedly till March, 1999. It was also contended by the workman that after his removal new appointments of Rameshwar Giri and Suresh etc. were made. The case of the employer was that respondent No. 2 did not work for 240 days and he was occasionally employed according to the exigency of the work. Labour Court in its short award discussed various authorities cited by both the parties and held that even a daily wager is entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of U. P. I. D Act. Even though the Labour Court in its award mentioned that the workman stated that Ram Sevak was appointed after his termination, however, in para 7 of its award Labour Court held the termination to be illegal only on the ground of violation of Section 6-N of U. P. I. D. Act. Services were terminated through notice dated 2-3-1989, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It was also filed before the Labour Court. In the said notice, it was mentioned that canals were being closed with effect from 28-2-1989, hence, the employees apart from regular belder should be disengaged. Respondent No. 2 the workman appeared as witness before the Labour Court. In his cross- examination he stated that he had no evidence to prove that Suresh Munnar and Ram Savek were his juniors. He further stated that he had no evidence that Ram Savek had been engaged after his retrenchment.
(3.) THE Labour Court mainly placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Sumishta Dubey v. City Board, Etawah, 1999 LIC 1125. Recently the Supreme Court in the following cases has held that even though daily wagers and muster roll employees are also entitled to benefit of Section 6-N of U. P. I. D. Act (equivalent to Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act) still it is not proper to direct reinstatement with full back wages, in case of violation of said provision; and in suitable circumstances the proper remedy would be to award consolidated damages/compensation : (1) Branch Manager M. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation v. S. C. Pandey, 2006 (2) SCALE 619. (2) Nagar Maha Palika v. State of U. P. , 1996 (2) LBESR 858 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 2113. (3) Haryana SEDC v. Mamni, 2006 (3) LBESR 151 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 2427. If in different Government departments due to exigency of work workers are engaged on daily wage basis then they do not have any right of regularisation even if they have worked for several years vide Constitution Bench authority of Supreme Court reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. , 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 1806. Even though such employees are entitled to retrenchment compensation still order directing reinstatement on the ground of non-payment of retrenchment compensation will be unwaranted burden of State Exchequer. Public money may be utilised for more essential public purpose. More often than not unscrupulous officers of public organisations terminate the services of daily wager/muster roll employees without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. I. D. Act. In several such cases retrenchment compensation is not paid in order to benefit the retrenched employees so that they may claim reinstatement with full back wages for violation of Section 6-N. It will not be in the public interest to fasten the financial burden upon the public undertaking on the basis of incompetence and unscrupulous action of the officers of the said undertaking. In view of these facts, in the above authorities Supreme Court has evolved the formula of payment of consolidated damages/compensation to the retrenched employees instead of reinstating them with full back wages in case services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. I. D. Act (equivalent to Section 25-F I. D. Act ). In case of Government Departments, Public Undertakings, Local Bodies and Governmental Agencies, it is essential to see as to whether initially appointment was made in accordance with relevant orders, rules and regulations or not.;