Quashed

Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital and Another v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2022WRIC/5683/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a non-speaking award by the Labour Court which reinstated a workman without discussing evidence or adhering to procedure. The High Court quashed the award as a farce, noting the court proceeded ex parte with the petitioner absent, failed to discuss evidence, and passed the award without remarks. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 18.11.1999 dated by the Labour Court is quashed.

Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5683 of 2001

¶3

Petitioner :- Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital And Another Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P.Singh,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Ashok Kumar Singh,Avadhoo Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None is present for the respondentworkman.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Challenge has been raised to the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur dated 18.11.1999 in Adjudication Case No. 193/1990 between the petitioner Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital, Azamgarh and its workman Smt. Kamrun Nisa. The said Adjudication Case had arisen upon the below quoted reference order dated 25.5.1990;-

¶8

"Kya sewayojko dwara apni mahila shramik Kamrun Nisha patni Mohd. Naseem, pad-safai majdoor ko dinank 22-4-88 se karye se prithak/vanchit kiya jana anuchit tatha avaidhanik hai/ Yadi han, to sambandhit mahila shramik kya laabh anutosh(relief) paane ki adhikari hai, tatha kis anya vivran sahit?"

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, it transpires that the award is wholly non speaking and framed contrary to the law and procedure. Upon receipt of written statement, a date appears to have been fixed in the proceeding for 18.11.1999. On that date itself, the petitioner was found absent in the proceedings. The award recites that the Adjudication Case was therefore, directed to proceed ex parte. Without fixing any further date, evidence of

¶10

the workman was recorded wherein, according to the Labour Court, she did not add to the pleadings. No further date was fixed in the matter.

¶11

More shockingly, without making any discussion of the evidence or facts pleaded, the Labour Court has merely framed the award of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity together with costs of Rs. 200/-.

¶12

To say the least, the award is a farce. It may never be sustained. At the fresh stage itself, the Court had granted below quoted stay order:

¶13

"Admit.

¶14

Issue notice to the respondent No.2.

¶15

In the meantime, the execution and implementation of the award dated 18.11.1999 published on 6th April, 2000 shall remain stayed till further orders of the Court."

¶16

Counter affidavit has been filed. However, no further fact has been pleaded in that affidavit that may given any confidence in the procedure followed by the Labour Court. Accordingly the writ succeeds.

¶17

Normally the Court may have remitted the matter to the Labour Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, it appears, no useful purpose may be served in adopting that course and it may only lead to increase the already heavy case load of the Labour Court. The respondentworkman has probably lost interest in the matter.

¶18

Accordingly the award dated 18.11.1999 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed leaving it open to the respondent workman to apply for recall of the order and seek a direction of setting aside the award with remand to the Labour Court, if any real dispute survives.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.5.2022/Faraz

¶20

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.05.27 17:27:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital and Another v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital and Another v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azhar Hasan Vs District Judge and Others

Nordic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Har Chand Vs Ist A.D.J. and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Keshav Chandra Nigam and Another

Prabhu Prasad Vs Baroda Up Bank

State of U.P. and Others Vs Nanak Chand and Others