# U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-29
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-electricity-board-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43557
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

4 All. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
141
unrelated to the work of the Government. The relationship of the petitioner with the respondent
company is a contractual one and not statutory. It does not have a public element.

23. The terms and conditions of employment of employees of the respondent company are
governed by the conditions of their appointment as has been alleged in the writ petition itself and
there are no statutory rules in this regard. Article 14 and 16 are attracted only in matters pertaining
to the State and its instrumentalities and not against private bodies such as the respondent company.
Article 311 has absolutely no application in the matter as the said provision also relates to a person
holding a civil post under the State which the petitioner does not.

24. Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution have absolutely no role to play in the facts of
the present case. The dispute herein is purely a private dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent company there being no public law element involved.

25. In view of the above, the respondent company can not be said to be performing a public
function so as to be amenable the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Even assuming that it does, the question still remains whether a writ of certiorari or mandamus
could be issued as has been prayed for in this writ petition in the absence of violation of any
statutory provision or positive obligation based on public law. The answer has to be in the negative.

26. In these circumstances and for the reasons mentioned herein above, this writ petition is not
maintainable. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition / Service Single No.- 4007 (SS) Of 1998

U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

The present petition had been filed against the award dated 11.8.1987 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Faizabad, published on 9.1.1998 whereby the Labour Court allowed the claim of Ram Raj and
held the order of termination to be bad in law and also directed for reinstatement of opposite party no.3 in
service with 5% back wages and Rs. 250/- as cost of the case. Petitioner had filed on the ground that the
court below wrongly held that the opposite party no.3 had worked under the petitioners although there is no
evidence on record giving such finding and hence the Award based on such finding is illegal and arbitrary.
Further, there is no finding that the opposite party no.3 had worked for one year continuously hence the court
below cannot held that Section 6(N) should have been complied with and for want of such finding the learned
labour court has wrongly assumed that the opposite party no.3 has been retrenched.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court observed that the petitioner counsel had relied upon the Apex Court judgement which held that in
industrial disputes, reinstatement with back wages could not be said to be justified and instead monetary
compensation would serve the ends of justice. The contesting respondent would be near about 60 years of
age and was allegedly removed in the year 1973 and since then more than 40 long years have elapsed and as
such, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The writ petition is allowed in part.

List of Cases Cited

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Man Singh; (2012) 1 SCCC 558

2. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta; (2009) 16 SCC 562

3. Assistant Engineer Rajesthan Development Corporation vs. Gitam Singh(2013) 5 SCC 136

4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal ; (2014) 7 SCC 177

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel and Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

2. The present writ petition arises out of the Award dated 11.8.1987 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Faizabad, published on 9.1.1998 whereby the Labour Court allowed the
claim of Ram Raj [opposite party no.3] and held the order of termination to be bad in law and also
directed for reinstatement of opposite party no.3 in service with 5% back wages and Rs. 250/- as
cost of the case.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that allegedly Ram Raj [opposite party no.3]
was working as Muster Roll Workman under the Employer Executive Engineer, Electricity
Distribution Division-I, Faizabad i.e. Petitioner No. 2 where it is said that he worked for more than
03 years and without any prior notice as well as compensation he had been removed from service
on 31.10.1973. Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the petitioners, he approached the labour Court in
the year 1989. The Labour Court, vide its order dated 11.08.1997, passed in Adjudication Case No.
148 of 1992, held the act of employer illegal and passed the Award as mentioned above.

4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award dated 11.8.1997, the U.P. State Electricity
Board has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the ground that the court below wrongly held
that the opposite party no.3 had worked under the petitioners although there is no evidence on
record giving such finding and hence the Award based on such finding is illegal and arbitrary.
Further, there is no finding that the opposite party no.3 had worked for one year continuously hence
the court below cannot held that Section 6(N) should have been complied with and for want of such
finding the learned labour court has wrongly assumed that the opposite party no.3 has been
retrenched.
4 All. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
143

5. Learned counsel for petitioners has also questioned the sustainability of the Award passed
by the Labour Court alleging that the issue in hand was referred to the Labour Court on 26.09.92
with a reference:

"Whether it is proper and legal to remove/deprive the workman Shri Ramraj son of Shri
ShriRam on 31.10.1973 from work by the employers? If not then for which compensation or
benefit, the concerned workman is entitled?"

6. Whereupon the Labour Court has allowed the claim of private respodent on the basis of
conjectures and surmises without there being any cogent evidence regarding appointment of private
respodent on 31.10.1970 and subsequent termination on 31.10.1973. Further, there was no witness
to prove the working of said private respondent during the period 31.10.1970 to 31.10.1973 under
the petitioners in Faizabad.

7. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.3 while defending the Award
submitted that he was working as a Muster Roll Workman and he had been removed from service
on 31.10.1973, without any prior notice and compensation. Even after his removal from service,
new workmen were appointed as well as services of contract labours were also taken but O.P. No.3
had never been given opportunity to work, therefore, Section 6H, 6P, 6Q of U.P. Industrial Dispute
Act have been infringed. In support of his version, O.P. No.3 had filed an order issued by SubDivisional Officer, Rural Electricity Distribution Division, Akbarpur dated 01.11.1973 and an
affidavit of co-workman Sarju Prasad. According to the affidavit of Co-workman Sarju Prasad, he
was earlier working as Daily wager with him and from 01.11.73 Sarju Prasad was regularized and
further from 01.04.1976 he had been declared permanent. In his oral evidence, the contesting
respondent had deposed before the Labour Court that on 01.01.1970, he had started working under
the employers at Power House Sohawan as Muster Roll Employee which was under Rural
Electricity Division, Faizabad where he continued to work there upto 31.10.1973, when he was
retrenched without giving any prior notice or compensation. It had also been alleged by him before
the Labour Court that other co-workmen had been retained and regularized,namely Ram Dayal, Om
Prakash etc. but he had not been reinstated. Even the employers had appointed some new workers
too but did not reinstate him.

8. Learned counsel for contesting respondent has further averred that after considering the
submissions made by the workman as well as employer, Learned Labour Court had resolved that
according to the Order dated 01.11.1973 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer of Rural Electrification
Sub-Division, Akbarpur, workman Ramraj, Sarju Prasad etc. had been declared as permanent
employee alongwith other employees and they had been directed to take over charge at the office of
Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division but according to O.P. No.3 he had never been
served with the said order. The employers have denied the said letter and alleged that Executive
Engineer was not empowered to pass such an order but learned Labour Court had resolved that
from its contents it transpires that the order dated 31.10.1973 issued by Executive Engineer had
been forwarded to concerned workmen and they had been instructed to report at the office of
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division and further a copy of this letter had also been
forwarded to Executive Engineer with regards to his letter dated 31.10.1973.

9. Learned Counsel for O.P. No.3 has further asserted that considering all these facts, the
Labour Court found it proved that letter of S.D.O. dated 01.11.1973 is not fake rather it was issued
according to the directions of Executive Engineer. In addition to it, workman-Om Prakash had
deposed on affidavit regarding his being made permanent w.e.f. 01.11.1973 and being regularized
w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and these facts have not been controverted by the employer. In the letter dated
01.11.1973 of S.D.O., name of workman Om Prakash is mentioned therefore, from perusal of all
the evidences, the Labour Court found it proved that the Employer- Executive Engineer had
ordered to appoint workmen Ramraj, Sarju Prasad, Om Prakash etc. on regular posts and
accordingly workman Om Prakash had been appointed on regular post but other workmen had not
been communicated with the said order.

10. A perusal of the record reveals that initially this court vide an interim order dated
17.9.1999 stayed the implementation of the impugned Award but later on vide dated 15.5.2007 this
Court directed the petitioner to comply provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The contesting respondent has filed an application for dismissal of the writ petition supported
within an affidavit stating therein that in compliance of the order dated dated a sum of Rs. 14,736/-
only had been paid through Cheque whereas a sum of Rs. 1,30,999.68/- was due against the
petitioners as would be established from the letter dated 6.1.1999 written by the Regional Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Faizabad to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Distribution Division. In
these circumstances, the order dated 15.5.2007 has not been complied wherein it was provided that
in case provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispautes Act are not complied with
retrospective effect and the benefit of the statutory provision is not given, then the interim order
passed in this case shall be deemed to be vacated. Later on, petitioner was paid honorarium in the
year 2008,2009 and 2010, receipts whereof have been annexed by the contesting respondents
alogwith the Affidavit filed in September, 2011.

11. It may be pointed out that during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners
relying upon the judgments rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Man Singh; (2012) 1
SCCC 558, Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta; (2009) 16 SCC 562 and
Assistant Engineer Rajesthan Development Corporation vs. Gitam Singh(2013) 5 SCC 136
contended that the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is not justified as in the aforesaid
cases it has been held that in case of wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short
period, the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and as such the impugned Award
passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside.

12. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions, which have been relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel
the Apex Court has held that in industrial disputes, reinstatement with back wages could not be said to be
justified and instead monetary compensation would serve the ends of justice. Even in the case of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal ; (2014) 7 SCC 177, which has been relied upon by the private
respondent the Apex Court in paragrph 34 held as under:-
4 All. Ram Newas Singh & Ors. Vs The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors.
145

"Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when
the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay
as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has
no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot
claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going
to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in
the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose."

13. Applying the aforsaid principles, I would like to discuss the present. A perusal of the record reveals
and as per own saying of the private respondent no. 3 that he had worked only for three years when his
services were dispensed with on 31.10.1973. Thus the termination took place more than 40 years ago. The
Award was passed in favour of the private respondent on 11.8.1997 however, the same was stayed by this
Court vide order dated 17.9.1999. Later on, vide order dated 15.5.2007, this Court directed for compliance of
provisins of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in compliance thereof a sum of Rs. 14736/- was
paid towards wages from 17.9.1999 to 31.7.2007 in the year 20007. Thereafter meager amount was paid in
the year 2008,2009,2010. However, the fact remains that there is no direct evidence for working of the
private respondent no.3. As averred above, the contesting respondent would be near about 60 years of age
and was allegedly removed in the year 1973 and since then more than 40 long years have elapsed and as
such, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned Award dated 11.8.1997 said
to be published on 9.1.1998 is modified by awarding compensation of Rs. Two lacs, which shall be paid to
private respondent no.3 within two months failing which the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of judgment.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Writ B No.- 4830 Of 2006

Ram Newas Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners
S.S. Tripathi, A.P. Tewari