Research Institute & Anr Vs. Kripal Singh  Insc 1234 (7 December 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain
APPEAL NO. 5680 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8722 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned single judge of the Uttranchal
High Court at Nainital allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
raised dispute stating that his alleged removal from service without any prior
notice was in violation of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the UP Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). A reference was made to the Labour Court to adjudicate the following
the termination of the services of Sri Kripal Singh s/o Sri Udal Singh, Beldar
by the employers from 4.6.1992 is justified and/or legal? If no, to which
benefit/compensation the concerned workmen is entitled and to what
is to be noted that the stand of respondent was that he had worked as a Beldar
on muster roll from 1.2.1991 to 3.6.1992 in the H-2 Division and he was removed
from service with effect from 4.6.1992 without notice. The Labour Court on considering the oral and
documentary evidence held that the respondent had not worked for 240 days in
any calendar year and, therefore, the question of any violation on Section 6(N)
of the Act did not arise. The order of the Labour Court was challenged in the writ petition. The High Court found
that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that the
number of days mentioned in the statement of the present appellants was the
same as those appearing in the muster rolls produced. It was concluded that the
muster roll clearly indicated the number of days on which the workman had
actually worked and not those along with holidays. On inclusion of the number
of holidays mentioned, the respondent had worked for more than 240 days. The
High Court did not find any substance in the plea of the present appellants
concerning the dispute being raised after about eight years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-workman had
himself stated that he was always ready and willing to do the work and since
the employer did not give him work, therefore, the working days of the entire
month are to be accounted for on that basis. He had made the calculations
showing that he had worked for 308 days. It is pointed out that the Labour Court categorically held that the details
filed and examined by the Labour Court
clearly indicated that holidays to be computed in accordance with prevalent
statutes have been included while working out the details of the case on which
the workman had worked. The High Court also did not consider the effect of the
present dispute which was raised after about 8 years.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the High
Court had applied the correct principles of law.
factual dispute presently raised is not really relevant.
is to be seen that the authenticity of the muster rolls produced was not
questioned by the respondent-workman.
of a dispute raised after about 8 years was also not considered. It is not in
dispute that the Labour
Court cannot refuse
to answer the reference because of delayed approach.
can certainly modulate the relief. The High Court had not analysed the factual
position. The High Court, in fact, had failed to notice that the Labour Court had taken into account the actual
days, when the respondent worked and the number of holidays to be taken into
account. Thereafter it held that the workman had, in fact, worked for 220 days.
Since there is a similar amount of confusion as to whether the holidays have
been computed or not and whether the workman had actually worked for more than
240 days, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to compute the actual days for
which the respondent had worked and then modulate the relief if any to be
granted taking into account the delayed approach. We make it clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on merits.
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.