advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, January 9, 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9999 OF 2014 State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation and Anr. ... Appellants Versus Km. Shashi Joshi ... Respondent

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9999 OF 2014
              (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17291 of 2014)


State of U.P. Thru. Secy.
Irrigation and Anr.                                   ... Appellants

                                   Versus

Km. Shashi Joshi                           ... Respondent





                               J U D G M E N T



ANIL R. DAVE, J.



1.    Leave granted.
2.    Looking at the facts of the case, the learned counsel had  agreed  for
final hearing of the appeal and therefore,  the  appeal  was  taken  up  for
hearing.
3.     In  this  appeal,  the  judgment  delivered  by  the  High  Court  of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated 20th August, 2013  in  Service
Single –C No.6258 of 1993 has been challenged.
4.    The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell  are  as
under:
            The respondent was engaged as a daily wager typist, as and  when
services of a typist were required  by  the  Irrigation  Department  of  the
State of U.P. from 1988.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  she  had  worked
intermittently till 19th January, 1990 and thereafter she was never  engaged
by the appellant Authority.  According to the  respondent,  she  had  worked
for 244 days in the year preceding to 19th January, 1990, whereas  the  case
of the appellants was that she had worked for hardly 220 days  in  the  year
preceding to the date when she was engaged as a daily wager last.

5.    The respondent had raised  a  dispute  under  the  provisions  of  the
Industrial Disputes Act upon her termination  as  she  had  not  been  given
retrenchment compensation and ultimately,  the  Labour  Court,  Lucknow  had
held under Award dated 20th August, 1992, that termination  of  services  of
the respondent was not justified  and  it  was  directed  that  she  be  re-
instated in service with back wages.
6.     Being  aggrieved  by  the  Award,  the  appellants  had   filed   the
aforestated writ petition before the High Court  which  had  been  dismissed
and therefore, the appellants have approached  this  court  by  way  of  the
present appeal.
7.    At the time of hearing of the appeal, a  grievance  was  made  by  the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in spite of the fact  that
petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed on  20th  August,  2013,
the respondent had not been taken back in service and  also  submitted  that
the respondent was prepared to forego back wages if she  is  re-employed  in
terms of the Award dated 20th August, 1992.
8.    In pursuance of the instructions received  from  the  Chief  Engineer,
Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar  Pradesh,  the  learned  counsel
appearing for the appellants  had  submitted  that  the  appellants  had  no
objection to re-instate the respondent as a daily  wager  in  terms  of  the
Award, if the respondent was ready  to  waive  her  right  to  recover  back
wages, as according to the appellants the respondent  was  not  entitled  to
back wages.
9.    Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon  perusal  of  the  Award  as
well as the impugned judgment, we find that  there  is  no  finding  to  the
effect that the respondent had not worked anywhere after 19th January,  1990
and therefore,  in  our  opinion,  it  would  be  just  and  proper  if  the
respondent is re-instated in terms of the Award without back wages.
10.   As the learned counsel appearing for the parties  have  fairly  stated
that the appeal be allowed to the limited extent so  as  to  re-instate  the
respondent daily wager without back  wages,  we  quash  and  set  aside  the
direction with regard to payment of  back  wages  to  the  respondent.   The
appeal is allowed to the above extent with a direction that  the  respondent
shall be re-instated within one month from  today  in  terms  of  the  Award
dated 20th August, 1992.  We make it clear that if the respondent is not re-
instated in service as a  daily  wager  within  one  month  from  today,  as
directed by the Labour Court, the appellants shall  pay  to  the  respondent
wages as a daily wager immediately after completion of one  month  from  the
date of this judgment.
11.   The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of  as  partly  allowed  with  no
order as to costs.

                                                  ………..……………….J
                                                  (ANIL R. DAVE)


                                                  ………..……………….J
                                                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)


                                                  …..…………………….J
                                                  (R.K. AGRAWAL)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER  03, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.