Allahabad HC Sets Aside the Award Passed by Labour Court, Gives them Two-Month to Decide on the Matter

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

The writ petition filed in the Allahabad High Court was against the award of the Labour Court dated 4.10.2019. The date, 17.05.2005, saw the termination of the services of Respondent, Jagdish Singh. Consequently, an industrial dispute was filed.

The Petitioner, at the stage of conciliation, filed detailed objections. These stated that the respondent was not a workman. Thus, the reference was not maintainable. The Petitioner filed a writ petition against the reference. The Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order staying the reference. The Court remitted the matter back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur.

Arguments of the Petitioner 

The Petitioner argued that parties ought to have access to lead evidence. Additionally, the framing of issues should be separate. On 3.4.2019, the respondent applied to decide if the respondent no.3 was a workman or not.

As per Rule 12 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the Labour Court or Tribunal, is to fix a date for the first hearing of the dispute. This Court must set the date within six weeks of the reference. The Court will then record reasons in writing and fix a later date for disposal of the dispute. In this suit, after fixing the first date, the Tribunal ought to have culled out the issues which it had to decide.

It was only after that that the Tribunal should pass the award. Before the Tribunal passes the award, the parties ought to have the opportunity to lead evidence on the merits of the case. The Petitioner, thus submitted that the award was giving out the issues for the first time. Thus, the issues were only guidance for the Labour Court to pass the award. It was not an intimation to the parties to lead evidence or to place their arguments.

Arguments of the Respondent

The Respondents argued that at no point of time, the opposing party petitioned for lead evidence. Furthermore, no application existed to prove the charges against the respondent as well.

The Appellate Court had at no point of time forbidden the Tribunal to decide the reference. The Tribunal’s decision on the issue as to whether the respondent was a workman, was not forbidden.

Judgement

The High Court held that the Labour Court had answered the reference on merits and in the award itself. The proper course for the Labour Court ought to have been that it should have first framed issues. Only after that, should it have directed the parties to make their submissions.

The High Court held that the written statement’s adjudication was unnecessary. Before finding the enquiry erroneous, the Court first has to hear the parties on that issue. If the enquiry’s adjudication seemed defective, the question of leading evidence on the charges would have arisen.

In the present matter, the issue of the respondent being a workman was decided after a full-fledged argument. Thus, the Court set aside the award. The Labour Court was to hear both parties and permit them to lead evidence. After that, the Court was to answer the reference. The High Court gave a two-month timeline for this exercise.

The writ petition was partially allowed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -