High Court · 2025

WPMS No. 2880 of 2013 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J 1. Mr. counsel for t he pet it ioner. 2. Mr. Kundan Singh, learned counsel for t he respondent no. 2. Sandeep Kot hari, learned

3. This writ pet it ion is direct ed against t he award dat ed 22.05.2013 rendered by learned I ndust rial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Haldwani in Adj udicat ion Case No. 87 of 2005. By t he said award, reference was answered in favour of respondent no. 2 and it was held t hat t erm inat ion of service of respondent no. 2 is unj ust and illegal; t o reinst at em ent in service, but wit hout any back wages. t herefore, he is ent it led I t is not in disput e t hat respondent 4. no. 2 was appoint ed on 10.03.1981 as Assist ant Grade- I in Parvat Wires Fact ory, which was a unit of a Governm ent Com pany known as “ Kum aon Mandal Vikas Nigam Lt d.” and his services was t erm inat ed vide order dat ed 02.04.1987. referred for adj udicat ion

5. Respondent no. 2 raised a disput e against t erm inat ion of his service, which t o t he Labour by Deput y Labour Court dat ed Com m issioner 08.12.2005. English Translat ion of t he quest ion, referred for adj udicat ion, is as follows: - “ Whet her t er m inat ion of service of Jeevan Chandra Pant S/ o Lat e Sri Mat hura Dat t Pant as Senior Assist ant , by t he em ployer w.e.f. 02.04.1987 is j ust and/ or legal? I f not , t hen t o w hat reliefs t he concerned workm an is ent it led t o? And wit h which ot her part icular s.” t o t he evidence learned t he conclusion

6. Based on led by Labour em ployer/ pet it ioner, t hat Court reached t erm inat ion of service of respondent no. 2 is by way of punishm ent , even t hough t he order of t erm inat ion appears t o be a sim plicit er. discharge Consequent ly, learned Labour Court held t he t erm inat ion t o be unj ust and illegal. Learned Labour Court furt her held t hat provision cont ained in Sect ion 6N of UP I ndust rial Disput e Act was also not followed while t erm inat ing services of respondent no. 2 - workm an. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner 7. does not disput e t he finding ret urned by learned Labour Court t hat t he order of t erm inat ion passed against respondent no. 2 is punit ive in nat ure, as t here was serious com plaint against workm an of m anhandling and m isbehaving wit h his Seniors. t o in grant ing cont inuit y respondent no. 2 by Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, 8. however, cont ended t hat learned Labour Court erred service t he im pugned award, as respondent no. 2 had served for only about six years in t he em ploym ent of t he pet it ioner, and by virt ue of t he direct ion issued by learned Labour Court , a huge financial burden would fall upon t he pet it ioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 9. 2, however, subm it s t hat learned Labour Court has denied back wages t he pet it ioner, and if cont inuit y in service is also denied, t hen his client will not get t o any benefit aft er a lit igat ion which has ext ended t o m ore t han t wo decades. He subm it s t hat respondent no. 2 was not em ployed anywhere during t his period and any t he award passed by learned Labour Court would be unwarrant ed. int erference wit h

10. Mr. Kundan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 subm it s t hat in cases where discharge is based on som e adverse service is by way of m at erial or discharge punishm ent , form al disciplinary enquiry is a m ust . He has j udgm ent of Hon’ble relied upon a Suprem e Court in t he case of Anoop Jaiswal vs. Governm ent of I ndia & anot her report ed in 1984 ( 2) SCC 369. Para 11 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - t hen holding of “ 11. On behalf of t he Union of I ndia reliance has been placed on St at e of Punj ab v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur; Union of I ndia v. R.S. Dhaba; St at e of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra; R.S. Sial v. St at e of U.P.; St at e of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi and I .N. Saksena v. St at e of M.P. . We have gone t hrough t hese decisions. Except t he case of Ram Chandra Trivedi all ot her cases referred t o above were decided prior t o t he decision in Sham sher Singh case which is a j udgm ent delivered by a Bench of seven Judges. As point ed out by us in all t hese cases including t he case of Ram Chandra Trivedi t he principle applied is t he one enunciat ed by Parshot am Lal Dhingra case which we have referred t o earlier. I t is urged relying upon t he observat ion in Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur case t hat it is only when t here is a full scale depar t m ent al enquiry envisaged by Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion i.e. an enquiry officer is appoint ed, a charge- sheet subm it t ed, explanat ion called for and considered, any t erm inat ion m ade t hereaft er will at t ract t he operat ion of Art icle 311( 2) . significant t hat in t he very sam e decision it is st at ed t he circum st ances preceding or at t endant on t he order of t erm inat ion of service have t o be exam ined in each case, t he m ot ive behind it being im m at erial. As observed by Ray, C.J., in Sam sher Singh case, t he form of t he order t hat I t t hat even an is not decisive as t o whet her t he order is by way innocuously of punishm ent and worded order t erm inat ing t he service m ay in t he fact and circum st ances of t he case est ablish t hat an enquiry int o allegat ions of serious and grave charact er of m isconduct involving st igm a has been m ade t he provision of Art icle 311( 2) .” infract ion of behalf law on t he set t led

11. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade respondent no. 2. Since pet it ioner was t erm inat ed from service, based on allegat ions of m isconduct , t herefore, as t he point , opport unit y of hearing was t o be given t o respondent no. 2 before passing any adverse order. Since respondent no. 2 was not heard at any st age, while t erm inat ing alt hough charge, t erm inat ion was based on t herefore, learned Labour Court was right in holding t hat t erm inat ion order passed against him is unj ust and illegal. service, t erm inat ing

12. Even ot herwise also, Sect ion 6N of UP I ndust rial Disput es Act ordains t hat before em ployer, who has com plet ed 240 days in a calendar year, a proper not ice or besides ret renchm ent precedent condit ion. t hereof, com pensat ion, service t here 13. Thus, int erference wit h t he im pugned award. Accordingly, t he writ dism issed. pet it ion ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J) 11.02.2025 Aswal