# Asstt. Project Engineer Ganga Pollution Control Unit v. P.O., Labour Court & anr

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 308
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-04-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10318 of 1998
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asstt-project-engineer-ganga-pollution-control-unit-v-p-o-labour-court-anr-41369
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri K.P.Agrawal
Sri K.M.Suman Sirohi
Ms. Gajala Bano Kadri
S.C.

Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947-6-NRetrenchment or worker-found illegal by
Tribunal-ignoring the aspect regarding
non service of notice, as well as without
giving retrenchment compensation-heldretrenchment notice-challenged through
union of -not be said notice not servedretrenchment allowed without giving
compensation- it was offered in July
1997-no dispute raised regarding less
compensation held -award by Tribunal
can not sustained.

Held: Para 9:

The workman's services had not been
terminated
on
1st
of
July1994. He
services had already come to an end
pursuant to the retrenchment notice
dated 22nd June, 1991. But the workman,
on accounts of an interim order of the
High Court dated 8th of July 1991,
continued to work. Upon the dismissal of
the writ petition, the retrenchment
notice revived automatically, on account
of which the services of the workman
came to an end automatically.

## Text

308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
statutory provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code.

13. In the absence of any element or
material to indicate that the applicant
would misuse the bail and in view of the
aforesaid position as discussed, let the
applicant Sri Krishna Balmiki involved in
case crime no. 498 of 2008 under section
363,366,323,504,506 &376 IPC Police
Station Mangalpur district Kanpur Dehat
be enlarged on bail on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing who sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned Court.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10318 of 1998

Assistant
Project
Engineer,
Ganga
Pollution Control Unit

...Petitioner

Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and
another

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.B.Mathur
Sri V.B.Mishra
Sri Avanish Mishra
Sri Rajeev Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.P.Agrawal
Sri K.M.Suman Sirohi
Ms. Gajala Bano Kadri
S.C.

Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947-6-NRetrenchment or worker-found illegal by
Tribunal-ignoring the aspect regarding
non service of notice, as well as without
giving retrenchment compensation-heldretrenchment notice-challenged through
union of -not be said notice not servedretrenchment allowed without giving
compensation- it was offered in July
1997-no dispute raised regarding less
compensation held -award by Tribunal
can not sustained.

Held: Para 9:

The workman's services had not been
terminated
on
1st
of
July1994. He
services had already come to an end
pursuant to the retrenchment notice
dated 22nd June, 1991. But the workman,
on accounts of an interim order of the
High Court dated 8th of July 1991,
continued to work. Upon the dismissal of
the writ petition, the retrenchment
notice revived automatically, on account
of which the services of the workman
came to an end automatically.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.B. Mishra, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
K.P.Agrawal, the learned Senior Counsel,
duly assisted my Ms. Gajala Bano Kadri,
the learned counsel for the respondentworkmen.

2. It transpires that the petitioner had
engaged a large number of workers on
muster roll in the Ganga Pollution
Scheme. On account of shortage of funds,
a decision was taken to retrench the
services of muster roll employees in
various Divisions of the Nigam, who were
engaged on or after 31st of August 1989.
In this regard, an order dated 20th May
1991 was issued directing the concerned
officers to retrench the services of the
muster roll employees in accordance with
law. Based on the said directions, the
services of a large number of muster roll
employees were retrenched in June 1991.
The respondent no. 2 was also a workman
1 All] Asstt. Project Engineer Ganga Pollution Control Unit V. P.O., Labour Court & anr.
309
employed on muster roll and was issued a
notice dated 22nd June, 1991. An offer to
pay
retrenchment
compensation
in
accordance with the provisions of Section
6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 was also made.

3. It has come on record that the
Union of the workers, namely, Jal Nigam
Jal Sansthan Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur
filed Writ Petition No, 18124 of 1991
challenging
the
retrenchment
order,
issued by the management to the muster
roll employees, and an interim order dated
8th of July, 1991 was passed staying the
retrenchment notice. Based on this
interim order, respondent no, 2 continued
to work. The said writ petition was
ultimately dismissed on 13.04. 1994 on
the ground that the petitioner has a
remedy of raising an industrial dispute.
Upon the dismissal of the writ petition,
the interim order was vacated, and,
accordingly,
the
workman
was
disengaged
w.e.f.
01.07.1994.
The
workman raised an industrial dispute
questioning the validity and legality of his
termination w.e.f. 1st of July, 1994. The
validity and legality of the order of the
alleged termination dated 1st of July, 1994
was referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication.
The
Labour
Court,
eventually gave an award dated 22nd
October, 1997 holding that the workman
had worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year and the provisions of
Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute
Act was not compiled with by the
management at the time when the service
of the workman was dispensed with on 1st
of
July,
1994,
and
therefore,
the
dispensation of the service of the
workman
was
in
violation
of
the
provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial
Dispute
Act.
The
Labour
Court,
consequently, directed the reinstatement
of the workman with continuity of his
services and with full back wages. The
petitioner, being aggrieved , has filed the
present writ petition.

4. The Labour Court, while directing
reinstatement, held that it was immaterial
as to whether the retrenchment procedure
was followed in the year 1991, inasmuch
as the workman continued to work
pursuant to the interim order of the High
Court, and thereof, worked for mote than
240 days. The Labour Court further found
that neither the notice of retrenchment nor
compensation
was
received
by
the
workman in June, 1991, and therefore, the
Labour Court held that the provision of
Section 6-N Industrial Dispute Act was
not compiled with.

5. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties at some length and I have
perused the record of Writ Petition No.
18124 of 1991. This Court is of the
opinion that the Award of the Labour
Court cannot be sustained. The Labour
Court was swayed by the fact that the
retrenchment notice was not served upon
the workman, in as much as, there was no
signature of the workman showing the
receipt of the said notice. In my opinion,
this finding is irrelevant, in as much as the
receipt of the notice is proved by the mere
fact that the union of the workers had
filed a writ petition challenging the said
notice of retrenchment. Consequently, the
workman had knowledge of the notice.
The record also indicates that the
employer offered compensation to its
workers and that the workman, in fact has
accepted the compensation on 11th of July
1994 after he joined the work pursuant to
the interim order granted by the High
Court on 8th of July, 1994.
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

6. It is settled law that under the
provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act which is pari
materia to the provisions of Section 25 F,
a notice is required to be served upon the
workman and there must be a positive
evidence of offering compensation to the
workman. It is irrelevant is the workman
accepts
or
refuses
to
accept
the
compensation. This view has been well
settled by the Supreme Court in Bombay
Union of Journalists & Ors. Vs. State of
Bombay & Anr., 1964(8) FLR. 236, M/s.
National Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal &
Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1206 which is
equivalent to 1967(14) FLR 356, and in
the matter of Sain Steel Products Vs.
Naipal Singh & Ors., 2001(89)FLR 356.

7. In the present case, the Court
finds that from a reading of the evidence
and the statements of the parties and from
a perusal of the record of Writ Petition
No, 18214 of 1991, that the notice of
retrenchment
was
intimated
to
the
workman, and even though he may not
have signed the notice, there is sufficient
evidence that he was served because of
the writ petition that the workman had
filed through his union. The evidence on
record indicates that the compensation
was also offered and that the workman
received the compensation on 11th of July
1997. There is no allegation to indicate
that less compensation was paid. The
record suggests that the retrenchment
compensation was paid to the workman.

8. In the light of aforesaid, the Court
holds that the provision of 6-N of the
Industrial Dispute Act was fully compiled
with
by
the
employer
and
the
retrenchment notice on 22nd June 1991
was perfectly valid.

9. The workman's services had not
been terminated on 1st of July1994. He
services had already come to an end
pursuant to the retrenchment notice dated
22nd June, 1991. But the workman, on
accounts of an interim order of the High
Court dated 8th of July 1991, continued to
work. Upon the dismissal of the writ
petition, the retrenchment notice revived
automatically, on account of which the
services of the workman came to an end
automatically.

10. In my opinion, there was no
termination of the services of the
workman
on
1st
July
1994.
The
retrenchment had already been effected
earlier, but was kept in abeyance on
account
of
an
interim
order.
Consequently, the Court finds that the
reference with regard to the validity and
legality of the order of termination dated
1st July, 1994 was patently erroneous
since there was no termination on that
date.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned award cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.D.KHARE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.7494 of
2009

Naresh Kumar

...Applicant

Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla