IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ANR versus KRIPAL SINGH

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 07-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ANR. 
V. 
KRIPAL SINGH 
DECEMBER 7, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 6(N)-!ndustrial 
Dispute-Alleging violation of the provision in termination of service-
c Delay of 8 years in raising the dispute-Computation of working 
days-Labour Court holding it to be less than 240 days-High Court 
holding it to be more than 240 days opining that holidays were not 
taken into account by Labour Court-On appeal held: Order of High 
Court was without analysis of factual position-Since there is 
D confusion regarding inclusion of holidays in computation of working 
days, matter remitted to Labour Court-~Relief could be modulated by 
> 
the Court in view of the delay. 
Respondent-workman raised industrial dispute alleging that 
E termination of his services without prior notice was in violation of 
the provisions of Section 6(N) ofU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Labour Court held that the respondent had not worked for 240 days 
in a calendar year. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 6(N). 
In Writ Petition, challenging the award, High Court held that Labour 
F 
Court computed the working days excluding the holidays and that if 
holidays were taken into account, the workman had worked for more 
than 240 days. High Court negated the plea of delay in raising the 
dispute of 8 years. Order was passed in favour of the workman. 
Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to 
Industrial Tribunal, the Court 
HELD: The authenticity of the muster rolls produced was not 
questioned by the respondent-workman. Effect of a dispute raised 
H 
1144 
IRRIGATIONRESEARCHINSTITUTEv. KRIPALSINGH 1145 
[PASAYAT,J.] 
after about 8 years was also not considered. It is not in dispute that A 
the Labour Court cannot refuse to answer the reference because of 
delayed approach. But it can certainly modulate the relief. The High 
Court had not analysed the factual position. The High Court, in fact, 
failed to notice that the Labour Court had taken into account the 
actual days, when the respondent worked and the number of B 
holidays to be taken into account. Thereafter it held that the workman 
had, in fact, worked for 220 days. Since there is a similar amount of 
confusion as to whether the holidays have been computed or not and 
whether the workman had actually worked for more than 240 days, 
the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to compute the actual days c 
for which the respondent had worked and then modulate the relief if 
any to be granted taking into account the delayed approach. 
[Para 8] [1147-A, B, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5680 of 
2007. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court 
ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 866 of2004 (M.S.). 
Abhishek Atrey and P.N. Gupta for the Appellants. 
Arnita Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
( 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned single F 
judge of the Uttranchal High Court at Nainital allowing the writ petition 
filed by the respondent. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Respondent raised dispute stating that his alleged removal from G 
service v.ithout any prior notice was in violation of the provisions of 
Section 6(N) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). 
A reference was made to the Labour Court to adjudicate the following 
question. 
H 
J. 
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
"Whether the tem1ination of the services of Sri Kripal Singh 
s/o Sri Udal Singh, Beldar by the employers from 4.6.1992 is 
justified and/or legal? If no, to which benefit/compensation the 
concerned workmen is entitled and to what extent?" 
B 
4. It is to be noted that the stand of respondent was that he had 
worked as a Beldar on muster roll from 1.2.1991 to 3 .6.1992 in the H-
2 Division and he was removed from service with effect from 4.6.1992 
without notice. The Labour Court on considering the oral and 
documentary evidence held that the respondent had not worked for 240 
c 
days in any calendar year and, therefore, the question of any violation on 
Section 6(N) of the Act did not arise. The order of the Labour Court 
was challenged in the writ petition. "The High Court found that the Labour 
Court did not consider the fact that the number of days mentioned in t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.