Dismissed

International Book Distributor through Its Manager v. B.D. Dhasmana

Uttarakhand HC4 Nov 2024WPMS/2646/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an industrial dispute award. The Court held that it could not interfere with the Labour Court's findings of fact, which were based on proper evidence and upheld the award reinstating the employee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Labour Court's award was not quashed.

International Book Distributor through Its… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

2024:UHC:8104

¶2

SL. No.	Dat e	Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS No. 2646 of 2014 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.
			Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 1. 4. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.10.2012, rendered by learned Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 82 of 2005. By the said award, termination of service of respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 02.07.2004 was declared to be unjust and illegal with a direction to the employer (petitioner) to reinstate him with 50% back-wages. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 was employed with the petitioner w.e.f. 10.08.1984 and his services were terminated without any prior notice or retrenchment compensation, w.e.f. 02.07.2004. Respondent no. 1 raised industrial dispute against his termination, which was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court, Dehradun, vide order dated 20.12.2004. English Translation of the reference order is as follows: -

¶3

2024:UHC:8104

¶4

Whether termination of service of
workman Sri V.D. Dhasmana by the
employer w.e.f. 02.07.2004 is justified/
or legal? I f not, then to what benefits
the workman concerned is entitled to, with other particulars?
6. Employer/ petitioner filed written
statement contending that respondent
no. 1 is not a workman; he has
attained age of superannuation,
therefore, he is not entitled to claim
reinstatement; respondent no. 1
voluntarily abandoned his employment, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from the Labour Court.
7. Learned Labour Court after
considering material on record returned
the finding that respondent no. 1 is a
workman. The contention that
respondent no. 1 voluntarily abandoned
employment was not accepted by
learned Labour Court, and it was held
that since his services were terminated
in violation of provisions contained in
Section 6N of U.P. I ndustrial Disputes
Act, therefore, he is entitled to
reinstatement with 50% back-wages.
8. Regarding the plea that
respondent no. 1 has attained age of
superannuation, therefore, he is not
entitled to reinstatement in service,
learned Labour Court has held that in
the absence of any provision in the
statute/ contract of employment to
show that the respondent no. 1 was to
retire at a particular age, the said plea
cannot be accepted. Reliance was
placed on judgment rendered by
Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Vs. National Textile

¶5

2024:UHC:8104

¶6

Corporation Ltd., (1988) SCC Online All 428 and Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Ramaratnam v. Labour Court and others, (2002) SCC Online Mad 901, wherein it was held that unless age/ date of superannuation is specified in the appointment order, an employee in private employment can continue to serve till he is physically and mentally fit. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that award given by learned Labour Court is erroneous, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 10. Law is well settled that while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court do not sit as court of appeal and every error of law and fact cannot be corrected in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat vij Company limited and another, (2014) 6 SCC 434. 11. Since learned Labour Court has returned findings of fact, which are based on evidence on record, therefore, this Court while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not inclined to interfere with such findings of fact. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 12. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 04.11.2024 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2024.11.07 10:38:08 +05'30'

International Book Distributor through Its Manager v. B.D. Dhasmana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Book Distributor through Its Manager v. B.D. Dhasmana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh Vs Kalpeshwari Devi

Shamshad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sudhashu Mishra Vs Lalita Mishra

Kishan Singh Vs Ritesh Pandey

Mahesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smirti Vs Gaurav Naithani