Sandeep Verma v. Union of India and others) which was decided by this Court on
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116489 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17391 of 2023 Petitioner :- Uma Shanker Pandey Respondent :- Central Government Industrial Tribunal And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Hridai Narain Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Hridai Narain Pandey for the respondent No.s 2 and 3 i.e. Central Board of Secondary Education. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 31st August, 2022 passed by Central Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur whereby the claim of petitioner -workman has been allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay Rs.1 lac as salary to the petitioner towards compensation for termination of his services which has been held to be in violation of Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said amount has been directed to be paid to the workman within 8 weeks from the date of the publication of the order failing which the respondents were further directed to pay interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case is that Central Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur while allowing the claim of the petitioner has only granted compensation while it was mandatory for them to have reinstated the petitioner in service. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged as Junior Assistant on 2.4.1996 by Central Board of Secondary Education i.e. which is a statutory body and instrumentality of the Central Government. The grievance of the petitioner raised against the respondent workman is that his services were dispensed with on 13.12.1999 on oral order of termination. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being writ petition No.370 of 2000 (Sandeep Verma Vs. Union of India and others) which was decided by this Court on 13.12.2002, where the petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise his grievances before Central Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. In pursuance of the directions of this Court the petitioner participated in the conciliation proceedings which failed as no settlement could be arrived at and consequently reference was made on 11.3.2008 to the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur to decide the question pertaining to termination of the services of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed his claim before the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court and the matter was contested by the respondents. The respondents submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, been appointed by a contractor, namely, M/s Manpower Security Services and accordingly there was no relationship of employer and employee in between the petitioner and the respondents and consequently submitted that the claim itself was not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. 6. The petitioner, on the other hand, contested the objections filed by the respondents and submitted that he was, in fact, appointed by the respondents and relationship of employer and employee existed. In support of his claim he adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Central Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court by means of the impugned award returned a finding that agreement entered into between the respondents and M/s Manpower Security Services was only for a period of one year and was not operation when the petitioner was appointed and rather it was a sham. The tribunal returned a finding that the petitioner-workman was engaged with the respondents and worked as an employee. He further held that the petitioner has to be given compensation instead of reinstatement, regularization and back wages etc. and by means of impugned award directed the respondents to pay salary of Rs.1 lac. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provision of Section 11 A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, once the tribunal has come to the conclusion that retrenchment was illegal and arbitrary then suitable direction should have been issued for his reinstatement but by not directing such reinstatement the Central Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court has acted illegally and arbitrarily and accordingly the said matter requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the Board has opposed the writ petition by submitting that it has adduced adequate evidence before the Labour Court and that the petitioner was was, in fact, employed through the contractor i.e. M/s Manpower Security Services. In support of his submissions he had also adduced agreement entered with Central Board of Secondary Education along with the list of workers who have been supplied by the said agency. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the said award indicates that the tribunal has delved in detail into the agreement leading to engagement of the agency for recruitment for personnel including the services provided to the respondent. It is held that the agreement which was entered into by the respondent with the agency was not for supply of manpower for office work rather for security purposes. It has further been held that the contractor did not have the license to supply labourers to the employer and even the respondents were not registered under the Contract Laour Regulation as provided for in the contract and accordingly, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is an employer of the respondents. Even after recording the said findings the Tribunal failed to consider as to whether the termination of the petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The the Tribunal was mandated to consider and decide the reference dated 11.3.2008 which was as to whether the action of the contractor in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 30.11.2019 is legal and justified. The tribunal had not even touched or delved in the matter regarding termination of the services of the petitioner and has directly discussed as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation instead of reinstatement along with back-wages and finally without any discussion has directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.one lac. It has also not discussed as to how they have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to be granted Rs.one lakh. In view of the aforesaid facts this Court is of the considered view that the said award is illegal and arbitrary and even the award has not been decided in terms of the reference and it has failed to consider as to whether the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law or contrary to the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Act of 1947. 10. Learned Standing counsel counsel has informed this Court that the amount of Rs.1 lac has already been tendered to the petitioner vide cheque No.412607 dated 3.5.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner by Indian Overseas Bank, Allahabad Branch (0350) Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. He submits that in case the said amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner then the same may be adjusted in the award to be passed by the Tribunal in pursuance of the directions of this Court. 11. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the award dated 31.8.2022 is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Central Industrial Tribunal Kanpur cum- Labour Court, Kanpur for hearing the parties afresh and decide the matter expeditiously. In light of the above it is expected that the matter shall be decided within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order id placed before it. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Labour Court, Kanpur. The time period of three months seems to be adequate as entire evidence has already been filed before it and the matter is finally to be heard immediately where the Tribunal will be duty bound to answer the reference made to it and consider all the relevant aspects of the matter.
Decision
12. In light of the above the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 25.5.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad