LexRAM GOPAL DWIVEDI versus M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 6 S.C.R. 414 RAM GOPAL DWIVEDI v. M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (Civil Appeal No. 8125 of2009) JULY25,2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Labour Laws: Industrial dispute· - Raised after termination of services of the appellants-workmen - Labour Court held the termination of workmen as illegal and directed their reinstatement with 50% back wages - High Court relying on *Shiv Mohan Singh case set aside the order of Labour Court - On appeal, held: Facts of Shiv Mohan D Singh's case is identical to the facts of the present case - High Court rightly relied on that case - Appeals dismissed. E F G H *U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Am: (2004) s sec 402 : [2004) 4 Suppl. SCR 953 - relied on. Case Law Reference [2004) 4 Suppl. SCR 953 relied on. Para7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8125 of2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C. M. Writ Petition No. I 0377 of 1998. WITH C. A. No. 8126 of2009. Satya Mitra Garg, Ms. Man ju Aggarwal, Advs. for the Appellant. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma, Haji Salimuddin, Advs. for the Respondent. 414 RAM GOPAL DWNEDI v. M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY 415 SUPPLY CO. LTD. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed against the final common judgment and order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P Nos. I 0377 and I 0389of1998 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein and set aside the awards dated B 29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997 given by the Presiding Officer, LabourCourt (Ill) Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos. 136of1994 and 129of1994 by which the Labour Court held that the termination of the appellants illegal and directed their reinstatement and payment of 50% back wages. 2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue C involved in these appeals. 3. The respondent is a unit of the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). It is known as Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (for short KESC). The terms and conditions of the employees working with the respondent are governed by the statutory D regulations framed by the Board in .exercise of its powers under Section 78 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 4. The appellants were engaged by the respondent to work in their set up as trade Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. In terms of the agreement, they were to undergo training in the trade of E Boiler Attendant/Cable Jointer. Their period of training was 3 years. It was to come to an end after the expiry of contract period. 5. The respondent accordingly terminated the services of the appellant in C.A. No. 8125 of2009 on 01.08.1989 and the appellant in C.A. No. 8126 of2009 on 13.07.1990. This gave rise to the dispute between the appellants and the respondent, which led to making of the industrial reference to the Labour Court, Kanpur to decide as to whether the termination of the appellants from the services was legal or/and proper and, if so, what relief the appellants are entitled to? F 6. Parties filed their statements and adduced evidence before the G Labour Court. By awards dated29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997, the Labour Court answered the reference in appellants' favour. It was held that, (i) the appellants were not paid any retrenchment compensation before terminating their services; (ii) no inquiry was held; (iii) the appellant having served with the respondent for more than two years, they were H 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A entitled to the protection of labour laws. The Labour Court, therefore, set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the appellants together with payment of 50% of back wages. B c 7. The respondent (employer), felt aggrieved of the awards, filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad and questioned its legality and correctness. By impugned judgments, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the awards of the Labour Court. The High Court held that the case at hand are fully covered by the decision of this Court in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 402 against the appellants and hence the Labour Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.