# D.C.M. Sriram Industries v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 818
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7448 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/d-c-m-sriram-industries-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-meerut-and-another-40210
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-Labour
&
service
Termination-Labour
court
award
challenged-Held-workman
worked continuously for more than 240
days-in
previous
calendar
yearprovisions
not
followed-Termination
order quashed.

Held- Para 5

The Labour Court after going through the
entire pleadings and the evidence on
record have found that the workman
concerned has completed more than 240
days of working in the previous calendar
year on the date when his services have
been terminated and admittedly the
provision with regard to payment of
compensation for retrenchment has not
been complied with by the employer.
Therefore Labour Court have held that
the workman concerned is entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages. This finding being
findings of fact cannot be assailed and
no ground is made out by the employer
for interference with this finding in
exercise of power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] D.C.M. Sriram Industries V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court., Meerut and others
819

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
dated 22.4.2000 has held that in such
circumstances the petitioner could not
have been reinstated in service and as
such he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
30.6.1987.
However,
the
authority
accorded approval for payment of retiral
benefits to the petitioner. Thus the
controversy is confined only to the
payment of salary to the suspension
period as to whether the petitioner should
be treated on duty or not during the
aforesaid period. From the records it
appears that the petitioner remained on
suspension till he attained the age of
superannuation.

9. For the reasons stated above the
authority has rightly held that the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
the charges leveled against the petitioner
were found to be proved and he has not
worked. In so far as the order dated
30.6.87 is concerned, the authority has
accorded approval for grant of retiral
benefits and as such this order had
virtually no effect whether the petitioner
had been dismissed from service or not.

10. The case law cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is
clearly distinguishable on facts, as the
charges have been found to be proved
against the petitioner in the enquiry as
well as by the U.P. Public Services.

11. There is no illegality or infirmity
in the order impugned in the writ petition.
It is not a fit case for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and is dismissed.

No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7448 of 1998

D.C.M. Sriram Industries
...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Agarwala

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-Labour
&
service
Termination-Labour
court
award
challenged-Held-workman
worked continuously for more than 240
days-in
previous
calendar
yearprovisions
not
followed-Termination
order quashed.

Held- Para 5

The Labour Court after going through the
entire pleadings and the evidence on
record have found that the workman
concerned has completed more than 240
days of working in the previous calendar
year on the date when his services have
been terminated and admittedly the
provision with regard to payment of
compensation for retrenchment has not
been complied with by the employer.
Therefore Labour Court have held that
the workman concerned is entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages. This finding being
findings of fact cannot be assailed and
no ground is made out by the employer
for interference with this finding in
exercise of power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] D.C.M. Sriram Industries V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court., Meerut and others
819
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner-employer aggrieved by
an award of the Labour Court, U.P.,
Varanasi dated 8th August, 1997, passed
in adjudication case No. 75 of 1991,
approached this Court by means of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, copy whereof is
annexed as Annexure- '1' to the writ
petition.

2. The following reference was
made
to
the
Labour
Court
for
adjudication:-

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh txchj flag
iq= Jh rksrkjke] flD;ksfjVh xkMZ dks fnuk¡d 24.10.88 ls
dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr@vFkok oS/kkfud gS]
;fn gk¡] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k 1⁄4fjyhQ1⁄2 ikus
dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\"

3. After the reference was received,
both the parties have filed written
statement and adduced evidence before
the Labour Court. The case set up by the
concerned workman before the Labour
Court was that he was working with the
employer with effect from October, 1982
and since then he is continuously working
with hard work and honesty and to the
satisfaction of his higher officers, but the
employer have terminated his services
without giving him any notice in writing
or without disclosing any fact.

4. The employer have set up their
case before the Labour Court that M/s
D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. is an unit
of M/s Daurala Sugar Works and the fact,
which has been stated by the workman in
his written statement, is not correct. The
employer have further stated that several
complaints have been received against the
workman concerned and on enquiry the
same has been found true, therefore the
employer have lost their confidence.

5. The Labour Court after going
through the entire pleadings and the
evidence on record have found that the
workman concerned has completed more
than 240 days of working in the previous
calendar year on the date when his
services
have
been
terminated
and
admittedly the provision with regard to
payment
of
compensation
for
retrenchment has not been complied with
by the employer. Therefore Labour Court
have held that the workman concerned is
entitled for reinstatement with continuity
of service and full back wages. This
finding being findings of fact cannot be
assailed and no ground is made out by the
employer for interference with this
finding in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

6. It has been next argued by learned
counsel for the employer that the Labour
Court has not considered the case set up
by the employer that the employer have
lost confidence with the workman. In this
view of the matter, this Court, declines to
interfere with the findings recorded by the
Labour Court, as the findings recorded by
the Labour Court, on the basis of
pleadings and the evidence adduced on
behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for
the petitioner lastly contended that on the
principles of "No work No Pay", since
the workman concerned admittedly has
not worked during all these years, the
award of the Labour Court deserves to be
modified.

7. In view of the law laid down by
the apex Court and also by this Court, the
ends of justice will meet if the award of
the Labour Court is modified to the extent
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
that the workman concerned will be
entitled only half of the wages from the
date of termination of his services till the
date of the award and thereafter he shall
be entitled to full back wages.

8. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition has no merit and
is
accordingly
dismissed
with
the
modification to the extent that the
workman concerned shall be entitled to
half back wages from the date of
termination of his services till the date of
the award and thereafter workman shall
be entitled for full back wages. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.8.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7263 of 2003

Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
Sri Satish Mandhyan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Nigam
Sri V.K. Burman
Sri Rahul Chaturvedi
Sri H.N. Pandey

Civil Procedure Code-Order 40 Rule 3
and 4- appointment of receiver-whether
a judicial officer could be appointed
receiver? Held-No.
Held- Para 14

Although
in
the
present
case,
the
receiver
was
appointed
on
the
application of plaintiff to which no
objection was filed by the defendant, a
judicial officer should not have been
appointed and should not have accepted
the office of receiver. A judicial officer is
not only a government servant under the
administrative control of the High Court,
but he also holds a position of status and
responsibility which requires him to
maintain
absolute
fairness
and
impartiality. His conduct both inside and
outside the court should be above board.
He is bound by the Conduct rules
applicable to government servants. He,
has
to
discharge
greater
sense
of
responsibility in performance of duties.
His actions and demeanor should be
impeccable. He cannot be permitted to
act in positions where his actions may be
subjected
to
scrutiny,
contempt
or
objected to by any of the parties.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. By this writ petition, Sri Dilip
Kumar Sharma, claiming himself to be
Secretary/Pradhan Mantri of Committee
of Management, Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti,
Bara Bazar, Goverdhan, Mathura (in short
'Society') and Sri Devendra Kumar
Sharma have prayed for a writ of
certiorari for quashing the plaint of
Original suit no. 332 of 1999 pending in
the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior
Division),
Mathura;
orders
dated
8.11.2002 appointing Dr. Rajesh Singh as
Receiver; and orders dated 20.12.2002
and 21.1.2003 by which the trial court has
denied non-Godhania Brahmins of Bara
Bazar, Goverdhan, Mathura from making
bid at the auction of income of Thakur
Giriraj Ji Maharaj Temple (in short
'Temple'). They have also prayed for a
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold
auction of the temple permitting both