# Sri Kripa Shankar and another v. The Vth A.D.J. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 40
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12814 of 1999
- **Bench:** V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kripa-shankar-and-another-v-the-vth-a-d-j-and-others-40372
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labour
Court award-validity challenged-finding
of facts regarded on the basis of recorddo not suffer any illegality, pervisity or
manifest error apparent on the face of
record-can
not
be
interfered
under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held: Para 5 & 6

The labour Court after hearing the
parties and looking into the record held
that the petitioner-employer had since
accepted the fact that prior to the
termination
of
the
services
of
the
workman-respondent
no.2
no
notice
whatsoever
was
sent
nor
any
retrenchment compensation was paid in
compliance of the provisions of Section
6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act the
termination
of
the
services
of
the
workman-respondent no.2 was wrong,
bad and illegal.

The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate before this Court that the
findings of fact recorded in the impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality,
perversity
or
any
manifest
error
apparent on the face of the record. More
so, the said findings of fact, arrived at by
the respondent on the basis of which the
impugned award has been passed, being
based on relevant material on record, is
not open to challenge before this Court
while exercising its special and extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
40
be no greater injustice to the owner /
landlord that he is being deprived of
reasonable rent and also the use of his
property. It is because of this nominal rent
that the tenant still wants to continue to
occupy the premises in dispute and hold
on to it.
10. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the parties. The
findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Court are
based upon the material available on
record. These are findings of fact and do
not call for any interference by this Court.
The petitioner has not been able to show
any perversity or material illegality in the
findings of the Courts below. The petition
has
no
force
and
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has prayed for 6 months time to
vacate
the
premises.
Counsel
for
respondents has agreed for the same.
Subject to undertaking being filed by the
petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12814 of 1999

State of U.P.

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Awasthi
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Pratap Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labour
Court award-validity challenged-finding
of facts regarded on the basis of recorddo not suffer any illegality, pervisity or
manifest error apparent on the face of
record-can
not
be
interfered
under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held: Para 5 & 6

The labour Court after hearing the
parties and looking into the record held
that the petitioner-employer had since
accepted the fact that prior to the
termination
of
the
services
of
the
workman-respondent
no.2
no
notice
whatsoever
was
sent
nor
any
retrenchment compensation was paid in
compliance of the provisions of Section
6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act the
termination
of
the
services
of
the
workman-respondent no.2 was wrong,
bad and illegal.

The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate before this Court that the
findings of fact recorded in the impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality,
perversity
or
any
manifest
error
apparent on the face of the record. More
so, the said findings of fact, arrived at by
the respondent on the basis of which the
impugned award has been passed, being
based on relevant material on record, is
not open to challenge before this Court
while exercising its special and extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.)

Heard Sri R.K. Awasthi learned
standing counsel on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri D.P. Singh learned
counsel for the workman-respondent no.2.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Sri Kripa Shankar and another V. The Vth A.D.J. and others
41
1. The present writ petition is
directed against the award passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court dated
28.5.1997, which was published on notice
board on 27.10.1997 by which the
workman was reinstated along with
continuity in service with minimum pay
scale from the date of termination of
service,
i.e.,
1.9.1989
till
date
of
reinstatement. It was further directed that
other benefit for which the workman was
entitled from time to time shall also be
paid to him.

2. The facts of the case in brief are
that the workman-respondent no.2 had
been working with the petitioner since
1.7.1986. His services were terminated
with effect from 1.9.1989. An industrial
dispute was raised and Adjudication Case
No.203/1992 was registered before the
labour
Court-respondent
no.1.
The
workman filed his written statement
stating therein that he has been working
since 1.7.1986 till 31.8.1989 as a muster
roll employee continuously but without
any reason his services were terminated
with effect from 1.9.1989 without giving
any retrenchment allowance hence, the
termination order in utter violation of
Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that juniors to
workman are working in the department
and even some of them have been
regularized and also by making fresh
appointments, the employer is taking
work but the workman has been wrongly
deprived
of
work
while
the
duty
discharged by him was of a permanent
nature hence, he should be reinstated.

On behalf of the petitioner, a written
statement (annexure-3 to the writ petition)
was also filed before respondentno.1,
denying the allegations made by the
workman. It has been averred that the
department of the petitioner is not an
Industry and no industrial dispute arose
between
the
petitioner
and
the
respondent-workman was not engaged
against any regular post but in fact he was
working as daily wage work charge
employee for specific work and after
completion of work, his engagement has
come to an end automatically. The
petitioner-employer raised a preliminary
issue to the extent that it did not fall under
the definition of Industry and therefore,
the Act was not applicable. However,
after hearing the parties, the labour Court
proceeded with the matter treating the
petitioner as an industry.

3. Documentary evidence was filed
on behalf of the parties and oral evidence
was led, the respondent no.1-workman
required the petitioner to file certain
documents such as the attendance register,
pay register, payment bills of work-charge
employee and other documents which
were admittedly not produced before the
Labour Court except for some of the
payment bills. Respondent no.2-workman
filed experience certificate which had
been challenged by the petitioner as
having forged signature, though in the
case P.W. Case 34/1991 filed by the
workman
under
the
provisions
of
Payment of Wages Act the concerned
Executive Engineer on behalf of the
petitioner had accepted that the workmanrespondent
no.2
had
worked
till
31.8.1989, and the Chief Senior Assistant,
had confirmed the signature and admitted
the authenticity of the said experience
certificate.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
42
4. In this writ petition an interim
order dated 2.4.1999 has been passed by
this Court wherein the petitioner was
directed to comply with the provisions of
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act which admittedly they have not
complied with. However, they have
deposited the same amount towards back
wages and have filed the Photostat copies
of the certificate regarding deposits made
before the labour Court.

5. The labour Court after hearing the
parties and looking into the record held
that the petitioner-employer had since
accepted the fact that prior to the
termination of the services of the
workman-respondent
no.2
no
notice
whatsoever
was
sent
nor
any
retrenchment compensation was paid in
compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act the
termination of the services of the
workman-respondent no.2 was wrong,
bad and illegal.

6. I have looked into the record of
the case and find that, after thorough
examination and critical scrutiny of the
pleadings and relevant material and
evidence
available
on
record
the
respondent no.1 has passed a well
reasoned
award
dated
25.5.1997
(annexure-1 to the writ petition) on the
basis of the findings of fact arrived at by
it. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate before this Court that the
findings of fact recorded in the impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality,
perversity or any manifest error apparent
on the face of the record. More so, the
said findings of fact, arrived at by the
respondent on the basis of which the
impugned award has been passed, being
based on relevant material on record, is
not open to challenge before this Court
while exercising its special and extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

7. Under the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find
that any illegality has been committed by
the respondent no.1 in passing the
impugned
award-dated
25.5.1997
(annexure-1
to
the
writ
petition).
However, looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case and also since,
there is no averment made by the
workman that he was not gainfully
employed anywhere else nor there is any
such finding to this effect that the
workman-respondent
no.2
was
not
gainfully employed at any other place
during the period he was not permitted to
work he shall not be entitled to full back
wages.
The
impugned
award-dated
25.5.1997
(annexure-1
to
the
writ
petition) is modified to the extent that
50% of the back wages shall be payable to
the workman-respondent no.2 from the
date of the termination till the date of the
passing of the award.

With the above said observations the
writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 851 of 1995

Sunil Kumar Jain

...Petitioner
Versus