448; P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1987] 1 S.C.C. 362 and Star Paper Mills Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. v. Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur & Ors., [1974] Allahabad Law Journal 71, referred to.
V.E. Thamas & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [1978] Allahabad Law Journal 1118, disapproved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 864 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 13975 of 1985.
M.K. Ramamurthi and A.K. Sangal for the Appellant.
Anil Dev Singh, G.B. Pai, O.P. Sharma, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, R.C. Gubrela, K.R. Gupta and R.K. Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant has questioned in this appeal by special leave the constitutional validity of subsection (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) and also the validity of the Order dated December 5, 1984 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh remitting an award passed by the Labour Court, Meerut for reconsideration by it.
The appellant was an employee of the Management, M/s. Electra (India) Ltd., Meerut-Respondent No. 5 in the above appeal. The services of the appellant were terminated by the Management by its Order dated April 4, 1977 and the said termination led to an industrial dispute. The State Government by its Order dated May 5, 1979 made under section 4-K of the Act referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Meerut. The question which was referred to the Labour Court read as follows:
"Whether the termination/removal from work of
the employee Shri B.P. Rajwanshi by the employers
by their Order dated 4.4.1977 is justified and/or
legal? If not, to
what benefits/damages is the concerned employee
entitled to and with what other details?"
On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, the following issues were framed by the Labour Court:
1.Was Shri B.B. Rajwanshi not a workman as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act? If so has this court jurisdiction to try this case?
2.Did Shri B.B. Rajwanshi not make efforts to minimise the losses due to unemployment?
3.To what relief, if any, is Shri B.B. Rajwanshi entitled?
4.Has Shri B.B. Rajwanshi been retrenched? If so, how does it affect the case? After recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the arguments the Labour Court held, (i) that the appellant was a workman as defined in the Act, (ii) that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and (iii) that the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his post with continuity of service and also to the payment of backwages and other benefits. The Labour Court accordingly passed an award on August 2, 1984 and forwarded it to the State Government. Instead of publishing the award in the Official Gazette, as required by sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act, the State Government passed an Order dated December 5, 1984 under section 6(4) of the Act which read as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH