# U.P. State Electricity Board and others v. Presiding Officer and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 333
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17727 of 1985
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-electricity-board-and-others-v-presiding-officer-and-another-40094
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
334
Sri A.K. Sinha
S.C.

Industrial Dispute Act-section 6-N-the
termination of the workman concerned -
without compliance of the provisions of
Section
6-N
of
the
U.P.
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which is pari materia
to section 25-F of the aforesaid Act
termination order was rightly quashed
by the tribunal.
Case Law referred:
1985 LAB I.C. 1806, AIR 1965, Calcutta 166
AIR 1960 SC 610, AIR 1976 SC Page 1111
AIR 1960 SC P-600

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board and others V. Presiding Officer and another
333
held that Scheme should be framed for
regularization of daily wage employees.

17. These decisions aforesaid have
been approved by the Supreme Court in
the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Vs.
M. Ranga Reddy 2001 (1) ESC 65.

18. I therefore, dispose of the writ
petition
in
view
of
the
Articles
38(1),19(e) and 43 of the Constitution
with the following directions:

(i) Respondents will prepare a list of
all daily wages, adhoc employees and
casual employees, employed after 1.1.89,
who are still in the employment on the
date of this judgment.

(ii) The list will also include those
employees
whose
case
regarding
termination are pending before the High
Court, Labour Court or Civil Court.

(iii) The seniority list will be
prepared
from
the
initial
date
of
appointment of the employees.

(iv) No further daily wage, adhoc or
casual/ temporary employee shall be
appointed/engaged henceforth till the list
is exhausted.

(v) The list prepared as above will
be sent to the Service Institutional Board
for approval within three months from the
date of this judgment.

(vi) On approval of employees they
shall be regularised against the existing
sanctioned posts strictly according to
seniority in existing vacancies and in
future as and when vacancies arise.

(vii) The employees shall be
appointed keeping in view the eligibility
criteria's and medical fitness, and post
conduct of the employees.

19. The petitioner's service having
not been approved by the Service
Institutional Board, is not liable to be
regularised in service. However, his case
for appointment in the Bank may be
considered according to the scheme given
by this Court above or any other scheme
of regularization which has been adopted
by the Board along with other daily wage
employees.

20. In view of the aforesaid
observations and reasons, the petition is
dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14TH JANUARY, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17727 of 1985

U.P. State Electricity Board, and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Chandra
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri Sudhir Agarwal
Sri B. Dayal
Sri Tarun Agarwal
Sri V. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.P. Agarwal
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
334
Sri A.K. Sinha
S.C.

Industrial Dispute Act-section 6-N-the
termination of the workman concerned -
without compliance of the provisions of
Section
6-N
of
the
U.P.
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which is pari materia
to section 25-F of the aforesaid Act
termination order was rightly quashed
by the tribunal.
Case Law referred:
1985 LAB I.C. 1806, AIR 1965, Calcutta 166
AIR 1960 SC 610, AIR 1976 SC Page 1111
AIR 1960 SC P-600

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioners-employers U.P.
State Electricity Board by means of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, have challenged
the award of the Industrial Tribunal (1),
U.P., at Allahabad, here-in-after referred
to as the 'Tribunal', dated 9th August,
1985, copy whereof has been annexed as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

2. The facts leading to the filing of
present
writ
petition
are
that
the
contesting respondent-workman, namely,
Mohd. Jameel was employed with the
employers, as would be clear from the
narration of fact and the written statement
filed by the parties and referred to by the
Tribunal in the award, which reveals that
"the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel
was employed as Pump Operator-cumelectrician with the employers w.e.f. 1st
June, 1977. The services of the workman
concerned were wrongfully terminated by
the employers on 1st February, 1979. The
workman through the respective union
raised an industrial dispute, which was
referred
to
the
Industrial
Tribunal,
Allahabad and was registered by the
Tribunal as adjudication case No. 168 of
1980. The Tribunal vide its award dated
17th August, 1981, published on 3rd
October, 1981 held that the termination of
the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel
from service by the employers was illegal.
The tribunal directed for re-instatement
with continuity of service and back wages
for
the
workman.
The
workman
concerned
thereafter
moved
an
application that under Section 6-E of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the
second issue referred to has not been
decided. For disposal of the case, it would
be convenient to peruse the reference that
has been made by the State Government
under section 4-K of the Act, which runs
as under:

1."D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed eksgEen tehy
iq= Jh Ógker mYyk iEi vkijsVj&de&bysfDVahÓ;u
dh lsok,a fnuk¡d 19.6.84 ls lekIr fd;k tk mfpr
rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS? ;fn ugh rks( lacaf/kr Jfed
D;k ykHk@vuqrksÔ 1⁄4fjyhQ1⁄2 ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk
vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk?"

2. ";fn okn leL;k1 Jfed ds I{k esa fu£.kr gksrh gS
rks D;k lacaf/kr Jfed dks LFkk;h ?kksfÔr fd;k tkuk
pkfg;s? ;fn gk¡ rks] fdlh frfFk ls rFkk vU; fdlh
fooj.k lfgr ?"

3. As already stated, when the
services of the workman concerned were
terminated w.e.f. 1st February, 1979, a
dispute was raised which has been
answered in favour of the workman for
re-instatement with continuity of service
and back wages. The Tribunal directed for
re-instatement vide its award dated 17th
August, 1981. Pursuance to the aforesaid
award, the employers re-instated the
workmen and started paying Rs.10/- per
day, as according to the employers the
workmen was employed on daily wage
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board and others V. Presiding Officer and another
335
basis. In this circumstances, the second
issue, which was referred to by the State
Government
for
adjudication,
the
Tribunal has answered both the issues in
favour of the workman by the award
impugned in the present petition holding
that the termination of the services of the
concerned workman w.e.f. 1st February,
1979 were illegal, inasmuch as the
provision of Section 6-N of the Act,
which is para materia of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have
not been complied with. The Tribunal has
also
directed
reinstatement
of
the
workman with continuity of service and
back wages. With regard to the second
issue, the Tribunal have directed that the
workman is in continuous service since
1977 and has put in more than eight years
till 19th June, 1984. The Tribunal has
recorded finding that indeed is too long a
period to keep a workman employed on
causal/daily wage basis, which is the
connotation of muster-roll employees and
therefore the Tribunal have directed the
employers to consider seriously the
possibility of the absorbing the workman
concerned on regular basis. Learned
counsel for the petitioners-employers
have raised the argument that a perusal of
the order of termination dated 19th June,
1984, Annexure-2 to the writ petitioner,
clearly
demonstrates
that
the
order
purports to comply with all requirements
of Section 6-N/Section 25-F of the Act, as
according to the petitioners' counsel, it is
not necessary that that the amount as
contemplated under Section 6-N/25-F of
the Act must be paid at the time of the
retrenchment,
but
if
the
order
contemplates the offer to collect the
amount contemplated under Section 25-F
of the Act, it is the substantial compliance
of the said provision and the Tribunal has
erred in holding otherwise. A perusal of
the termination order dated 19th June,
1984 clearly demonstrates that it purports
to terminate the services of the workman
and informs the workman concerned that
he
may
collect
the
retrenchment
compensation and wages for one month's
notice. This, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioners, amount to
substantial
compliance
and
nothing
further is required to be complied with,
particularly when there is a report of the
peon that when the notice was offered to
the workman concerned, he refused to
accept the same and told the peon that the
same may be sent to his home address,
which was admittedly sent after two days
i.e. 21st June 1984; whereas, as per notice
Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the
services of the workman stand terminated
w.e.f. 19th June, 1984. Curiously and
particularly in the teeth of the denial by
the workman concerned that the order of
termination was never offered to him and
that he never denied to received the same.
The workman also denied that he received
the registered letter, which was sent to his
home address after three days and he
came to know with regard to the
termination of his services only when he
came to office for collecting the wages at
the end of the month. The employers have
not produced the person, who was scribe
of the report, whereby report has been
submitted that with regard to the service
of the order of termination dated 19th
June, 1984 to the effect that the workman
has refused to accept the same. The
Tribunal has further dealt with the
working and the calculation etc. of the
retrenchment
compensation
on
the
account slip and have arrived at the
conclusion that the same has admittedly
been done after the termination of the
services of the workman w.e.f. 19th June,
1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
336
has not disputed, not challenged the
findings recorded by the Tribunal on this
account. He thereafter insisted upon that
since substantial compliance have been
done with regard to Section 6-N/25-F of
the Act, the view taken by the Tribunal to
the contrary i.e. Sections 6-N/25-F have
not been complied with, deserves to be set
aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon a decision report in 1985
LAB.I.C.,
1806-

Management
of
Ramesh Hydromachs Vs. The Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and
another. The another decision relied upon
by the petitioner's counsel is report in
AIR 1965 CALCUTTA 166- B.N. Elias
and
Col.
Priate
Ltd.
Vs.
Fifth
Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal and
others in support of this contention.

4. Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
workman concerned has relied upon a
decision of the apex court, report in AIR
1960 supreme Court 610, The State of
Bombay and others Versus the Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha and others, which is a
judgment of three Judges Bench. The
apex Court has held:

"On a plain reading of Section
25F(b) which is pari materia of Section
6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, it is
clear that the requirement prescribed by
is
a
condition
precedent
for
the
retrenchment of the workman. The
section provides that workman shall be
retrenched
until
the
condition
in
question has been satisfied. It is difficult
to accede to the argument that when the
section imposes in mandatory terms a
condition
precedent,
non-compliance
with the said condition would not render
the impugned retrenchment invalid.
Therefore, we see no substance in the
argument that the court of appeal has
misconstrued Section 25 F(b). That
being so, failure to comply with the said
provision renders the impugned order
invalid and inoperative."

5. The next decision relied upon by
Sri Agarwal is reported in AIR 1976 S.C.
Page 1111, The State Bank of India
Versus Shri N. Sundara Money, which is
equivalent to 1976 (Vol. 32), F.L.R. 197 -
State Bank of India Versus Shri N.
Sundara Money, wherein the apex Court
has approved the judgment reported in
AIR 1960 SC page 600, The Apex Court
has held as under:

"Without further ado, we reach the
conclusion that if the workmen swims
into the harbour of Section 25-F, he
cannot be retrenched without payment,
at
the
time
of
retrenchment,
compensation computed as prescribed
therein read with Section 25-B(2). But
argues the appellant, all these obligation
flow only out of retrenchment, not
termination outside that species of
snapping employment. What, then, is
retrenchment? The key to this vexed
question is to be found in S.2(00), which
reads thus:

"2(00)
"retrenchment"
means
the
termination by the employer of the
service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever,
otherwise
than
as
a
punishment
inflicted
by
way
of
disciplinary action, but does not include
-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman;
or
(b) Retirement of the workman on
reaching the age of superannuation if
the contract of the employment between
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sujeet Kumar Singh and others V. Union of India and others
337
the
employer
and
the
workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that
behalf; or
(c) Termination of the service of a
workman on the ground of continued illhealth."

6. In view of the law laid down by
the apex Court, referred to above, the
finding s recorded by the Tribunal that the
termination of the workman concerned, in
the present case, has been done without
compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, which is pari materia to Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, do not warrant any
interference by means of this writ
petition.

7. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition is devoid of any
merits and is accordingly dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stand vacated.
However, the parties shall bear their own
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10866 of 2002

Sujeet Kumar Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anupam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Govind Saran

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
temporary employees have no right to
the post and they can have no grievance
as
their
appointments
are
only
temporary- At the most the petitioners
could have been given preference, had
they also applied for screening or had
participated in the selection process
which they have not done.

Held -para 11

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners
are only substitutes and they were
appointed on temporary basis till the
regular appointments were made by
R.R.B., Allahabad. Since they did not
participate in the selection process they
cannot
challenge
the
process
of
selection.
Case law referred:
(1998) 6 SCC-619, (1980) 2 SCC-593
(1997) 2 SCC-1, AIR 2000 SC-1401
AIR 2001 SC-102

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioners have filed this writ
petition challenging the impugned orders
of their termination of service dated
8.3.2002 Annexure-2a, 2-b and 2-c to the
writ petition passed subsequent to the
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad dated 05.03.2002,
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The
petitioners have also sought a direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to consider the case of their
absorption/regularization against existing
vacancies
in
different
regions
in
accordance with the Rules and master
Circular issued by the Railway Board
dated 29.01.1991 and thereafter the