LexKRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, ACHANERA AND ANR. versus VINOD KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,4--
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 232
~
A
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, ACHANERA AND ANR.
'
v.
VINOD KUMAR
I-
(Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 2006)
\
B
JANUARY 30, 2008
[DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
-;
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Labour dispute -
Award of Labour Court- Writ petition against, by workman -
c High Court reserved judgment, the very first day the matter
was listed before it, and 3~ months later delivered judgment
allowing the writ petition - Held: Without issuance of notice,
pn the first day itself the judgment was reserved and the award
of Labour Court set aside - Hence, matter remitted to High
D Court for fresh adjudication - Practice and Procedure.
Respondent-workman filed writ petition challenging
the award passed by Labour Court. The matter was listed
-f
)lo-.
before the High Court for the first time on 27-8-2003 and
on that date itself the judgment was reserved by High
E Court. The judgment was ultimately delivered on 19-12-
2003 whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent-
workman was allowed. Hence the present appeal.
Remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
F
HELD: Though the judgment was purportedly
?--.
delivered on 19-12-2003, same was not in the list. The
l.-
parties were not aware of the judgment delivered which
r
is evident from the fact that the counter affidavit was filed
by the appellant on 16-01-2004 and the rejoinder by the
respondent was filed on 29-04-2004. It is, therefore,
I-
G submitted by the Appellant that without issuance of the
'r ,,
notice, on the first day itself the judgment was reserved
~
and the award of the Labour Court was set aside. This
position is not disputed by the Respondent. In the
aforesaid background, the impugned order of the High
.,
H
232
)-
i
1-
+ KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT!, ACHANERA & ANR.
233
v. VINOD KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.]
----+-
Court is set aside and the matter remitted to it for fresh A
adjudication. [Paras 4, 5] [234-A, B, C]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3539
I
of 2006.
-.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 and B
27.8.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
;--
C.M.W.P. No. 37181/2003 and C.M. (Recall) Application No.
....
113220 of 2004 in C.M.W.P. No. 37181/2003 respectively.
Pradeep Misra for the Appellants.
c
Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad D
High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and
dismissing the review petition filed by the present appellant.
t~
2. The factual scenario need not be refe·rred to in detail. In
a nutshell the position is as follows:
Respondent aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court E
dated 20.2.2003 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). The dispute
which was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication
read as follows:
...l
"Whether termination of services by the employers of their
F
workman Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Shiv Charan Lal,
Mandi Assistant w.e.f. 10.01.1998 is legal and/or valid? If
not, then to what relief or benefit the workman is entitled
to get?"
G
.....
3. The Labour Court after issuance of the notice to the
parties held that the Subzi Mandi was not an industry and further
the workman had been appointed for 89 days on ad hoc basis.
The said award was challenged before the High Court. The
matter was listed on 27.8.2003 for the first time and on that
.
',
H
,~-
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 2 S.C.R.
~~
A date the judgment was reserved and delivered on 19.12.2003.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellants the
t
notice was given on 23.8.2003 and the matter was listed on
27.8.2003. Though the judgment was purportedly delivered on
B
19.12.2003, same was not in the list. The parties were not aware
of the judgment delivered which is evident from the fact that the
~
counter affidavit was filed by the present appellant on 16.1.2004
('
and the rejoinder by the present respondent was filed on
29.4.2004. It is, therefore, submitted that without issuance of
c
the notice, on the first day itself the judgment was reserved and
the award of the Labour Court was set aside. This position is
not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. In the aforesaid background, we set asidExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.