# M/s U.P.S.I.C. Pottery Ltd. & Anr v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 55
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50923 of 2004
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-u-p-s-i-c-pottery-ltd-anr-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-i-ors-42927
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Back Wagestermination on allegation-stoling watch of
college-as
well
as
misbehave
with
manager-disciplinary
enquiry
not
conducted
treating
daily
wager-from
appointment
letter-nothing
whisper
regarding daily wager-Labour Court by
impugned award found termination illegalreinstatement
with
full
back
wagesoutrightly stayed by Writ Court-during this
period workman not gainfully workedentitled for wages-considering clouser of
unit instead of reinstatement and in leu of
back wages-lum sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs
given-petition partly allowed.

Held: Para-6
In the instant case, the Court finds that the
services of the workman was terminated on
account of a charge of theft. This charge
has not been proved. No disciplinary inquiry
was initiated nor any chargesheet was
served and, consequently, the Court is of
the opinion that the order of termination
was wholly violative of the principles of
natural justice. The Labour Court was
accordingly, justified in reinstating the
workman.

## Text

1 All] M/s U.P.S.I.C. Pottery Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) &Ors.
55
examination in question though on the
strength of interim order passed by this
Court in the year 2001 and since then more
than 12 years period have elapsed, in such
a situation and in this background her
result be directed to be declared. Petitioner
submits that accepting for the purposes of
case, that her claim would be rejected
finally, even then directives can be issued
for conferment of her degree, as Apex
Court in the matters wherein finally caste
certificate has not been verified has
proceeded to accord relief, when courses
have been pursued/completed. This Court
feels that agony of the petitioner should
also come to an end on the same lines as
has been settled by Apex Court in the case
of State of Maharastra Vs Milind and
others reported in AIR 2001 (SC) 393,
[Civil Appeal No. 2294 of 1986 decided on
28.11.2000]; wherein Apex Court has
proceeded to mention that nobody is to be
benefited in the matter of annulment of her
admission as huge amount has been spent
on each candidate for completion of
medical course. Similar view has been
taken in the case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir
Batham and others reported in (2012) 1
SCC 333 ; Priya Gupta Vs. State of
Chhatisgarh and others reported in 2012
(7) SCC 433. Accordingly in the present
case also result be declared. Said exercise
be completed by the concern authority
within a period of two months from the
date of presentation of certified copy of the
order passed by this Court and it is made
clear that petitioner would not get any
benefit of caste/tribe, as same would be
totally dependent on outcome of the
decision State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee.

45. In terms of above observations and
directions present writ petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50923 of 2004

M/s U.P.S.I.C. Pottery Ltd. & Anr.Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) & Ors
 M .....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.S. Baghel, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anand Kumar

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Back Wagestermination on allegation-stoling watch of
college-as
well
as
misbehave
with
manager-disciplinary
enquiry
not
conducted
treating
daily
wager-from
appointment
letter-nothing
whisper
regarding daily wager-Labour Court by
impugned award found termination illegalreinstatement
with
full
back
wagesoutrightly stayed by Writ Court-during this
period workman not gainfully workedentitled for wages-considering clouser of
unit instead of reinstatement and in leu of
back wages-lum sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs
given-petition partly allowed.

Held: Para-6
In the instant case, the Court finds that the
services of the workman was terminated on
account of a charge of theft. This charge
has not been proved. No disciplinary inquiry
was initiated nor any chargesheet was
served and, consequently, the Court is of
the opinion that the order of termination
was wholly violative of the principles of
natural justice. The Labour Court was
accordingly, justified in reinstating the
workman.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Respondent no.3 is a workman and
was employed in the petitioner's corporation
on 15th May, 1982. The workman worked
continuously for more than 5 years and his
services was terminated by an order dated
20th September, 1987 on the charge of
stealing a watch of his colleague. The
workman, being aggrieved, raised an
industrial dispute. The State Government
referred the matter to the Labour Court with
regard to the validity and legality of the
order of termination.

3. The workman contended that no
inquiry nor any chargesheet was given to
him
before
passing
the
order
of
termination. On the other hand, the
Corporation took a stand that the Manager
had conducted a preliminary inquiry and
found that the charge stood proved. It was
further contended that the workman also
misbehaved with the Manager and,
consequently, on this short ground also
the workman's services was terminated. It
was also contended that the workman was
a daily wager and that no disciplinary
inquiry was required for a daily wager.

4.

The
Labour
Court,
after
considering the material evidence on
record, gave an award dated 27th
November, 1993, which was published on
22nd July, 2004 directing reinstatement of
the workman with continuity of service
and will full back wages. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the said award, has
filed the writ petition in the year 2004,
which was entertained and a complete
stay of the award was granted.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties at some length, the Court finds that
the contention of the petitioner that the
workman was employed as a daily wager and
was not employed in a permanent capacity is
patently misconceived. The appointment letter
has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ
petition, which indicates that the workman
was appointed as a skilled workman on a
salary including dearness allowance etc. The
appointment letter does not indicate that the
workman was appointed on a temporary basis
or as a daily wager. This Court further finds
that the workman had worked from 1982 to
1987 continuously without any break in
service and, therefore, having worked for five
years was entitled to be heard and disciplinary
proceedings was required to be taken against
the workman. The employers were required to
adhere to the provisions of the Certified
Standing Orders of the company and take
disciplinary action in accordance with the
principles of natural justice.

6. In the instant case, the Court finds
that the services of the workman was
terminated on account of a charge of theft.
This charge has not been proved. No
disciplinary inquiry was initiated nor any
chargesheet was served and, consequently, the
Court is of the opinion that the order of
termination was wholly violative of the
principles of natural justice. The Labour Court
was accordingly, justified in reinstating the
workman.

7. Since the order is violative of the
principles of natural justice, the workman
has to be reinstated and it would be open
to the employer to hold an inquiry in
accordance with law. The Court, however,
finds that it would not be worthwhile or
feasible for the employer to hold a fresh
inquiry on account of lapse of time. The
incident is of the year 1987 and more than
26 years have elapsed. It has been stated
that the factory has also closed down.
1 All] Mohd. Akram Siddeeque & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
57
Consequently, holding a fresh inquiry is
not a feasible option.

8. With regard to reinstatement, the
Court is also of the opinion that for such
stale matters, reinstatement is also not a
feasible option, especially when it has
come to the knowledge of the Court that
the factory has closed down.

9. The Court further finds that even
though, the award was sent to the
government on 27th November, 1993, the
State Government sat over the matter for 10
years and only published it on 22nd July,
2004. For these 11 years the employer
should not be saddled with paying back
wages to the workman since the employer
was not at fault.

10. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court is of the opinion that the only
feasible option at this stage is to grant
lump sum compensation to the workman
in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

11. As stated aforesaid, for calculating
back wages and compensation, the period
from 1993 i.e. from the date of the award till
the award is published in 2004 should not be
taken into consideration.

12. The workman has come forward
and has stated on an affidavit that he is
unemployed. The record also suggests that he
is a farmer and, consequently, must be tilling
his land, but no proof has been filed by the
petitioner on an affidavit that the workman is
gainfully employed in an industry.

13. Considering the aforesaid fact
that the petitioner may have remained
unemployed from 1987 onwards i.e. from
the date of the award and that pursuant to
the publication of the award, no amount
from 2004 till date has been paid to him
and considering the inflation and rise in
the
price
index
of
the
essential
commodities, the Court is of the opinion
that a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rs.5 lacs) would be substantial to meet
the ends of justice.

14. Consequently, the writ petition is
partly allowed. The award of the Labour
Court directing reinstatement with back
wages is modified to the extent that the
petitioner would pay compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.5 lacs) to the workman
within six weeks from today in lieu of
reinstatement with back wages.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51811 of 2013
connected with No. 50305 of 2013, no.
50833 of 2013, no. 51295 of 2013, no.
51328 of 2013, no. 51422 of 2013, no.
51494 of 2013, no. 51694 of 2013, no.
51760 of 2013, no. 51996 of 2013, no.
52498 of 2013, no. 52548 of 2013, no.
52774 of 2013, no. 52806 of 2013, no.
52846 of 2013, no. 52885 of 2013, no.
52897 of 2013, no. 52983 of 2013, no.
53136 of 2013, no. 53227 of 2013, no.
53532 of 2013, 54445 of 2013, no. 53930 of
2013, no. 57020 of 2013, no. 56948 of 2013,
no. 55848 of 2013, no. 56351 of 2013, no.
57470 of 2013, no. 57469 of 2013, no.
57536 of 2013, no. 59112 of 2013, no.
59136 of 2013, no. 59203 of 2013 and no.
62386 of 2013.

Mohd. Akram Siddeeque & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents