STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERSversusPRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     WRIT - C No. - 11036 of 2021

State of U.P. and two others                          …..Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and                 …..Respondents(s)
another




Counsel for Petitioners(s)       : C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Jamal Ahmad Khan


Court No. - 36

           HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.    Heard Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for
Petitioners-State and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for
contesting respondent.

2.    Petitioners before this Court are Irrigation Department of
State of U.P. and are aggrieved by impugned award dated
29.07.2020 whereby a reference of industrial dispute that, whether
contesting-respondent’s services from the post of Chowkidar was
legally terminated on 01.01.1993 or not, was allowed to the extent
that it was held that contesting-respondent has worked for more
than 240 days in a year, therefore, his services were wrongly
                                          2
                                                             Writ C No. 11036 of 2021

terminated and it was directed for reinstatement with full back
wages. Relevant part of award is reproduced hereinafter:

     “21. यह निरन्तर सेवा का अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 2(जी) में इस तरह परिभाषित
     किया गया है कि निरन्तर सेवा का तात्पर्य अबाधित सेवा जिसमें वह सेवा भी सम्मिलित है,
     जिस अवधि में कर्मकार बीमारी अधिकृ त अवकाश दुर्घटना, हड़ताल, जो गैर कानूनी न हो,
     तालाबंदी या कार्य न होना जिसमें कर्मकार का कोई दोष न हो तथा 12 कै लेण्डर (माहों की
     अवधि) में 240 दिन से कम कार्य उस उद्योग में न किया हो, परिस्थितियों में भी कर्मकार
     को एक वर्ष की निरन्तर सेवा में माना जायेगा। वैध छँ टनी की दूसरी शर्त जो धारा 6 एन
     (बी) में उल्लिखित है, के अनुसार कर्मकार को छं टनी के समय छं टनी मुआवजा भुगतान
     कर दिया गया हो। यह छं टनी मुआवजा प्रत्येक पूर्ण वर्ष की सेवा का 15 दिनों के औसत
     वेतन होगा या हर 6 (छह) माह से अधिक होने पर कोई भी भाग/धारा (सी) के अन्तर्गत
     राज्य सरकार को निर्धारित प्रारूप पर एक नोटिस प्रेषित की गयी है। धारा 6 एन के
     अन्तर्गत यदि छं टनी एक समझौते के अन्तर्गत की गयी हो तथा जिसमें छं टनी की निश्चित
     तिथि का उल्लेख हो तो नोटिस या नोटिस के एवज में वेतन की आवश्यकता नहीं होती है।
     लेकिन छं टनी मुआवजा फिर भी देय है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण से वादी तथा प्रतिवादी विभाग के
     मध्य ऐसा कोई समझौता नहीं था जिसमें एक निश्चित अवधि के बाद वादी की सेवायें
     समाप्त होने की कोई शर्त दी गयी हो। वादी इस कार्यस्थल (पिनाहट स्टोर आगरा) में
     चौकीदार के तौर पर कार्यरत था। वह वर्ष 1997 में आगरा क्षेत्र में स्थायी तौर पर स्थापित
     कर दिया गया। पुनर्गठन में भले ही चम्बल नहर परियोजना पुनर्गठित कर नलकू प विभाग
     में समायोजित कर दिया गया हो लेकिन वादी को 6 ए की वैधानिक व्यवस्था से सेवा से
     छं टनी नहीं की गयी तथा 6 एन के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन किया गया। वादी ने दि०
     31.12.1992 तक निरन्तर सेवा करने का दावा किया है जो विभागीय अभिलेखों से
     साबित होता है, क्योंकि 1997 तक पिनाहट स्टोर आगरा में कार्य था। प्रतिवादी ने दि०
     31.12.1992 के बाद पिनाहट स्टोर आगरा में किस चौकीदार को कार्य पर रखा या नहीं
     रखा के कोई भी कथन न तो अपने प्रत्युत्तर में प्रस्तुत किये और न ही कोई अभिलेख
     प्रस्तुत किये जो कानपुर से आगरा के नवसृजित कार्यालय में भेज दिये गये थे। इस प्रकार
     वादी की सेवाएँ अनुचित रूप से समाप्त कर छं टनी की गयी।
     22. अतः पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध तथ्यों, साक्ष्यों एवं विवेचना के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष
     पर पहुंचता हूँ कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा भेजा गया सन्दर्भदेश कि 'क्या सेवायोजकों द्वारा
     अपने श्रमिक श्री अनेक पाल सिंह पुत्र श्री ऊदल सिंह, चौकीदार की सेवायें दिनांक
     01.01.1993 से समाप्त किया जाना उचित/तथा/अथवा वैधानिक हैं? यदि नहीं, तो
     सम्बन्धित श्रमिक क्या लाभ/रिलीफ पाने का अधिकारी हैं तथा अन्य किस विवरण
     सहित?" के सम्बन्ध में श्रमिक श्री अनेक पाल सिंह पुत्र श्री ऊदल सिंह की सेवायें दिनांक
     01.01.1993 से की गयी सेवा समाप्ति अनुचित एवं अवैधानिक हैं। प्रतिवादी सेवायोजक
     श्री अनेक पाल सिंह को सेवा की तारतम्यता के साथ उसी पद पर पुनर्स्थापित/बहाल करें
     तथा सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि 01.01.1993 से सेवायोजक विभाग में समय-समय पर देय
     न्यूनतम वेतनमान दर से बेकारी अवधि का पूर्ण वेतन का भी भुगतान वादी श्री अनेक पाल
     सिंह को करना सुनिश्चित करें । वादी श्री अनेक पाल सिंह सेवा अवधि के अन्य हितलाभ
     पाने का अधिकारी है जो वह सेवा में रहते हुए पाता। सेवायोजक पक्ष वादी को अधिनिर्णय
     प्रकाशन के दिनांक से दो माह के अन्दर समस्त धनराशि भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें ।
     ऐसा न करने की दशा में वादी श्रमिक श्री अनेक पाल सिंह देय धनराशियों पर 10 प्रतिशत
     ब्याज वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक पाने का अधिकारी होगा।"
                                       3
                                                     Writ C No. 11036 of 2021

3.    Learned Standing Counsel appearing for petitioners submits
that this Court has passed following interim order on 14.06.2021,
which has been complied with:

      “Submission is that the second respondent had worked for a short
      period and is not in employment since 1992. Contention is that in such
      circumstances, even if, a finding of non-compliance of Section 6-N of
      the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was returned by the Labour
      Court, yet only lump sum compensation ought to have been awarded.
      Matter requires consideration.
      Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken by registered/speed
      post, within a week.
      The respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder
      affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.
      List thereafter.
      Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the award dated
      29.7.2020 shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner deposits a
      sum of Rs. 1 lac with the Labour Court concerned, within four weeks
      from today. On such deposit, Rs.25,000/- would be released to the
      second respondent without furnishing any security and the remaining
      amount would be invested in a fixed term interest bearing account in
      some Nationalized Bank.”

4.    He further submits that according to case of contesting-
respondent, he has worked from 1986 to 1992 and after more than
six years an industrial dispute was referred and without considering
that contesting-respondent was failed to discharge his initial burden
to prove that he has worked continuously and atleast 240 days in a
year, a finding was returned that contesting-respondent has worked
for more than 240 days in a year.

5.    Learned Standing Counsel further submits that a direction for
full back wages upon reinstatement is contrary to various judgments
passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court that an order of
reinstatement would not automatically accompanied with a
direction of payment of full back wages specifically when there is
no finding that contesting-respondent was not gainfully employed
                                  4
                                               Writ C No. 11036 of 2021

between the period when proceedings were pending before Labour
Court, i.e., from 1998 to 2020.

6.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for contesting-
respondent has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Supreme
Court in M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant
Pandey, (2015)4 SCC 270; Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and
another, (2015)4 SCC 458; State of U.P. vs. Charan Singh, (2015)8
SCC 150 and this Court’s judgment in State of U.P. Thru Its
Prbhagiya Nidesak, Samajit Vaniki vs. Ram Pradesh and another,
2013:AHC:72477 that even a workman on muter roll if worked for
240 days in a calendar year, retrenchment without complying
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be illegal.
According to learned counsel, contesting-respondent has still left
with 2-3 years to work before he would cross age of
superannuation.

7.    I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the
material on record.

8.    In the present case, contesting-respondent has only made an
oral statement that he has continuously worked from 1986 to 1992
as well as that for more than 240 days in a year. However, his oral
submission was not supported by any documentary evidence.
Petitioner has brought on record the muster roll between 1986 to
1989 wherein contesting-respondent was granted priority to work as
Chowkidar as and when required. No further document was placed
on record either by petitioner or contesting-respondent. Therefore, a
finding returned by Labour Court that in terms of Section 2(g) of
Industrial Disputes Act, the contesting-respondent           was in
continuous service and that he has worked for more than 240 days
in a calendar year, would not be justified.
                                                                    5
                                                                                  Writ C No. 11036 of 2021

                            9.          Otherwise also, even if the order of reinstatement is upheld,
                            the further direction of full back wages would be contrary to settled
                            law position as held by Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer,
                            Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota
                            vs Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 as well as State of Uttar Pradesh
                            vs. Krishna Murari Sharma, 2025 INSC 1500 that an order of full
                            back wages cannot be automatic with an order of reinstatement.

                            10.         The Court also takes note that contesting-respondent has 2-3
                            years to work if he is reinstated though there is no material on
                            record either before Labour Court or before this Court that during
                            earlier period contesting-respondent was not gainfully employed.

                            11.         In aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would
                            be justified if this writ petition is disposed of with one time lump
                            sum compensation in view of a judgment passed by Supreme Court
                            in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma (supra).
                            Therefore, considering that contesting-respondent has worked for
                            about 6 years as per his own case and Rs. 1 lakh has already been
                            deposited, one time lump sum compensation is determined to be Rs.
                            3 lacs. Contesting-respondent will be at liberty to file an application
                            for release of Rs. 1 lakh already deposited and remaining amount of
                            Rs. 2 las shall be paid by petitioners to contesting-respondent within
                            four weeks from today.

                            12.         With aforesaid observations, directions and liberty this writ
                            petition is disposed of.



                            September 16, 2026                    (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                            AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad