HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Versus

the same challenged the reinstatement of the respondent workmen by the Labour Court by way of an award dated

21.12.2020. The petitioner company is also one and the same, hence, these two writ petitions are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of clarity, the facts of WPMS No.859 of 2021 are taken into consideration.

2. The reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court in terms of the provisions contained under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

3. The issue raised in the reference was whether 1 termination of services of the employee-Smt. Adesh Kumari post of helper with effect from 05.01.2017 is justified and proper or not and if not, then to which compensation, the employee is entitled to get along with the details. The employee submitted her written statement wherein it was stated that she was engaged with the petitioner company on the post of helper on 25.07.2011, but the employer had shown the employment of employee through a contractor and she was shown to be engaged in the petitioner institution with effect from 31.05.2015. This way, from the date of engagement of employee is 25.07.2011 and till the date of retrenchment i.e. 05.01.2017, she remained continuously posted with the petitioner institution. On 05.01.2017, the employer refused to accept the services of employee and by way of an oral order and in an illegal manner, the services of the employee were terminated on 05.01.2017 for not taking the respondent workmen and other lady, an application was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar, but no action was taken thereupon. The employee has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and there has been no fault on the part of the employee. It was also stated that the employee was never issued any show cause notice nor any complaint was made from her. Even if, there was any fault on the part of the work of employee, retrenchment of services of the employee without conducting any domestic inquiry is completely justified and illegal. Thus the prayer to reinstatement was made. The petitioner employer submitted its written statement Paper No.A-13, wherein it was stated that the employee was posted as helper as a contractual 2 labour. The behavior of the concerned employee was not good since beginning and she used to remain on leave for most of the time without information. She also adopted negligent behavior towards the work for which she was given oral warning several times. On 14.11.2016, she was also issued a warning letter regarding the negligence of work. At present, there is no post of helper lying vacant in the institution. On 06.01.2017, the employee came to the factory premises and misbehaved with the working manager and went away without informing anyone. The workmen were never removed from the service. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court by the impugned award has allowed the application moved by the respondent workmen and directed for her reinstatement with effect from 05.01.2017 along with entire backwages. A further direction to pay Rs.2,000/-as litigation expenses was also made. Challenging the award, the present petition has been filed by the employer petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

5. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that although the written reply was given by the petitioner employer but the said statement was not supported with any affidavit nor any witness in evidence was produced on behalf of the employer whereas the employee supported her averments by way of an affidavit and also affirmed the averments from her evidential affidavit. In the cross examination done from the employee by the employer, no such fact could come out that the 3 employee did not remain posted as helper or she did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Even otherwise in the light of the facts produced by the employee if it is assumed that she was engaged in the institution of employer from 31.05.2015, then also from before 05.01.2017, the fact of having worked for 240 days in a calendar year by her is proved from her affidavit.

6. Moreover, the employer has mentioned about working of workmen in some other institution in the written statement. But the name of no such institution has been mentioned nor any oral or documentary evidence has been produced on his behalf. Thus this statement of the employer loses its significance.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has placed reliance on the relevant paragraphs in the case of M/S Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. vs. Kitab Singh reported in AIR 2013 SC 1172, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a 4 gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an thereagainst and appeal or certiorari or entertaining supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. revision preferred a petition invoking (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.”

8. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no error manifested or apparent on the face of the preceding nor does it prove that it caused grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

9. In view of the directions given by the learned Labour Court for reinstatement of the workmen along with the full backwages, I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court.

10. Both these petitions are devoid of merit and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court are hereby affirmed.

11. Let the workmen be reinstated into the services 5 with backwages as directed by the court below at the earliest but not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.09.2025 6

the same challenged the reinstatement of the respondent workmen by the Labour Court by way of an award dated

21.12.2020. The petitioner company is also one and the same, hence, these two writ petitions are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of clarity, the facts of WPMS No.859 of 2021 are taken into consideration.

2. The reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court in terms of the provisions contained under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

3. The issue raised in the reference was whether 1 termination of services of the employee-Smt. Adesh Kumari post of helper with effect from 05.01.2017 is justified and proper or not and if not, then to which compensation, the employee is entitled to get along with the details. The employee submitted her written statement wherein it was stated that she was engaged with the petitioner company on the post of helper on 25.07.2011, but the employer had shown the employment of employee through a contractor and she was shown to be engaged in the petitioner institution with effect from 31.05.2015. This way, from the date of engagement of employee is 25.07.2011 and till the date of retrenchment i.e. 05.01.2017, she remained continuously posted with the petitioner institution. On 05.01.2017, the employer refused to accept the services of employee and by way of an oral order and in an illegal manner, the services of the employee were terminated on 05.01.2017 for not taking the respondent workmen and other lady, an application was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar, but no action was taken thereupon. The employee has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and there has been no fault on the part of the employee. It was also stated that the employee was never issued any show cause notice nor any complaint was made from her. Even if, there was any fault on the part of the work of employee, retrenchment of services of the employee without conducting any domestic inquiry is completely justified and illegal. Thus the prayer to reinstatement was made. The petitioner employer submitted its written statement Paper No.A-13, wherein it was stated that the employee was posted as helper as a contractual 2 labour. The behavior of the concerned employee was not good since beginning and she used to remain on leave for most of the time without information. She also adopted negligent behavior towards the work for which she was given oral warning several times. On 14.11.2016, she was also issued a warning letter regarding the negligence of work. At present, there is no post of helper lying vacant in the institution. On 06.01.2017, the employee came to the factory premises and misbehaved with the working manager and went away without informing anyone. The workmen were never removed from the service. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court by the impugned award has allowed the application moved by the respondent workmen and directed for her reinstatement with effect from 05.01.2017 along with entire backwages. A further direction to pay Rs.2,000/-as litigation expenses was also made. Challenging the award, the present petition has been filed by the employer petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

5. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that although the written reply was given by the petitioner employer but the said statement was not supported with any affidavit nor any witness in evidence was produced on behalf of the employer whereas the employee supported her averments by way of an affidavit and also affirmed the averments from her evidential affidavit. In the cross examination done from the employee by the employer, no such fact could come out that the 3 employee did not remain posted as helper or she did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Even otherwise in the light of the facts produced by the employee if it is assumed that she was engaged in the institution of employer from 31.05.2015, then also from before 05.01.2017, the fact of having worked for 240 days in a calendar year by her is proved from her affidavit.

6. Moreover, the employer has mentioned about working of workmen in some other institution in the written statement. But the name of no such institution has been mentioned nor any oral or documentary evidence has been produced on his behalf. Thus this statement of the employer loses its significance.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has placed reliance on the relevant paragraphs in the case of M/S Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. vs. Kitab Singh reported in AIR 2013 SC 1172, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a 4 gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an thereagainst and appeal or certiorari or entertaining supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. revision preferred a petition invoking (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.”

8. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no error manifested or apparent on the face of the preceding nor does it prove that it caused grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

9. In view of the directions given by the learned Labour Court for reinstatement of the workmen along with the full backwages, I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court.

10. Both these petitions are devoid of merit and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court are hereby affirmed.

11. Let the workmen be reinstated into the services 5 with backwages as directed by the court below at the earliest but not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.09.2025 6