Dismissed¶20

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Sobat

Uttarakhand HC10 Feb 2025WPMS/1410/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement of daily-wage workman without back wages; benefit of Section 6N U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and 240 days' continuous service; unrebutted workman's deposition; Rule 12(9) U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 presumption where employer leads no evidence; Labour Court Haridwar award upheld; Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.; termination declared unjust and illegal; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶20

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs Shri Sobat — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1410 of 2012

¶3

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & Others … Petitioners

Versus

Shri Sobat

… Respondent

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶8

10.2.2025

¶9

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

¶10

This writ petition is directed against the award dated 20.9.2011 rendered by learned Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 191 of 2009 (Old Adjudication Case No. 24 of 2007). By the said award, termination of services of respondent by Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. was declared to be unjust and illegal and the employer was directed to reinstate the respondent, but without any back wages.

¶11

Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that Shri Sobat Singh (workman) passed away in the month of May, 2021 and his legal representatives have now been substituted in his place.

¶12

Petitioners have challenged the award mainly on the ground that there was no material before the learned Labour Court for

¶13

¶14

holding that the respondent (workman) has served for 240 days in a calendar year. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that respondent is not entitled to benefit of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in the absence of any finding that he served for 240 days in a calendar year.

¶15

Impugned award is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the respondent was examined as a witness, who, in his deposition, has stated that he served with Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. from 12.1.1986 till 1.8.1987 and further that he had served continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, yet he was replaced by different set of daily wage employee. The said statement made by the respondent (workman) remained unrebutted, as no witness was examined on behalf of the employer (petitioner herein). Rule 12(9) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 ordains that if the affidavit filed by the union or the workman is not rebutted by the employer, then the Labour Court shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement. Rule 12(9) of the aforesaid Rule is reproduced below:

¶16

“If the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the union or the workman is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall presume the contents of the affidavit to

¶17

¶18

be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement.”

¶19

It is not in dispute that the procedure laid down in Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not followed while terminating services of the workman. Thus the learned Labour Court was justified in declaring termination of services of respondent as unjust and illegal.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any scope for interference with the impugned award. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶21

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

¶22

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Sobat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Sobat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Devi Alais Asha Kohli Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nirmala Devi Vs Bilap

Manoj Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

In Re in the Matter of Parole of Shyam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kalpana Vs Devendra Singh

Israr Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand