IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ANRversusKRIPAL SINGH

A            IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ANR.
                                     V.
                             KRIPAL SINGH

                           DECEMBER 7, 2007
B
             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.]


        Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 6(N)-!ndustrial
  Dispute-Alleging violation ofthe provision in termination ofservice-
c Delay of 8 years in raising the dispute-Computation of working
  days-Labour Court holding it to be less than 240 days-High Court
  holding it to be more than 240 days opining that holidays were not
  taken into account by Labour Court-On appeal held: Order ofHigh
  Court was without analysis of factual position-Since there is
D confusion regarding inclusion ofholidays in computation of working
  days, matter remitted to Labour Court-~Reliefcould be modulated by       >

  the Court in view of the delay.
        Respondent-workman raised industrial dispute alleging that
  termination of his services without prior notice was in violation of
E the provisions of Section 6(N) ofU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  Labour Court held that the respondent had not worked for 240 days
  in a calendar year. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 6(N).
  In Writ Petition, challenging the award, High Court held that Labour
  Court computed the working days excluding the holidays and that if
F holidays were taken into account, the workman had worked for more
  than 240 days. High Court negated the plea of delay in raising the
  dispute of 8 years. Order was passed in favour of the workman.
  Hence the present appeal.

G       Partly allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to
    Industrial Tribunal, the Court

        HELD: The authenticity of the muster rolls produced was not
    questioned by the respondent-workman. Effect of a dispute raised

H                                  1144
     IRRIGATIONRESEARCHINSTITUTEv. KRIPALSINGH 1145
                    [PASAYAT,J.]
    after about 8 years was also not considered. It is not in dispute that A
    the Labour Court cannot refuse to answer the reference because of
    delayed approach. But it can certainly modulate the relief. The High
    Court had not analysed the factual position. The High Court, in fact,
    failed to notice that the Labour Court had taken into account the
    actual days, when the respondent worked and the number of B
    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,
    the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to compute the actual days c
    for which the respondent had worked and then modulate the relief if
    any to be granted taking into account the delayed approach.
                                                   [Para 8] [1147-A, B, CJ

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5680 of
    2007.                                                      D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court
    ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 866 of2004 (M.S.).
         Abhishek Atrey and P.N. Gupta for the Appellants.
                                                                              E
         Arnita Gupta for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
(         2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned single F
    judge of the Uttranchal High Court at Nainital allowing the writ petition
    filed by the respondent.
         3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
         Respondent raised dispute stating that his alleged removal from G
    service v.ithout 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
    question.
                                                                             H
                                                                                J.


    1146             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A                "Whether the tem1ination 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 extent?"

       4. It is to be noted that the stand of respondent was that he had
B
  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
c 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
D 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.
E
         5. 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.
F 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
G
  dispute which was raised after about 8 years.
                                                                                ~
          6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted
    that the High Court had applied the correct principles of law.
           7. The factual dispute presently raised is not really relevant.
H
    .l,
      '

            IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. KRIP AL SINGH 1147
                            [PASAYAT,J.]
                8. It is to be seen that the authenticity of the muster rolls produced A
          was not questioned by the respondent-workman. Effect 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. But it can ce1iainly modulate the relief. The High Court had
          not analysed the factual position. The High Court, in fact, had failed to B
          notice that the Labour Comi had taken into accom1t 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 c
          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.                                                           D
                9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to
          costs.
          K.K.T.                                           Appeal partly allowed.




(