LexSAMISHTA DUBE versus CITY BOARD, ETAWAH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
SAMISHTA DUBE
v.
CITY BOARD, ETAWAH AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 26, 1999
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.)
Labour Law:
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(k).
Industry-Scope and ambit of-Municipal Board--General Ad-
ministrative Departme11t Employees of-Held : Covered u11der S. 2(k)---ln-
dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 2(j).
Sectio112(z)----!'Workma11''--Scope and ambit of-Typist/Clerk---ln ad-
D mi11istrative office of Mu11icipal Board-Held: Covered under S. 2(z).
I
'
Retre11chme11t-f'rocedure f or-{]nder S. 6-P-,:Jpplicability of S. 6-
N---Held: S. 6-P does not require a11y particular period of co;1ti11Uqus service
as required by S. 6-N-He11ce, High Court en-ed i11 de11yi11g r~lief to the
E workme11 011 the grou11d that he had put in 011ly a few years' service (three
and a half mo11th's service).
Retre11chme11t-f'rocedure f or-{]nder S. 6-P-Deviatio11 from-f'em1is-
sibility of-Rule of 'first come, last go'--Applicability of-To daily-wage
employees-Held : Rule applicable to daily-wage employees also---lt is per-
F missible for the employer to deviate from this Rule i11 case of lack of efficie11cy
or loss of confide11ce-But the burden will be 011 the employer to justify the
deviation-ii! the abse11ce of such justificatiOI! tem1i11atio11 of a daily-wage
employee is violative of S. 6-P.
G
Tennination of service-Proper remedy against-Typist/Clerk in Ad-
mi11istrative office of Nagar Palika---Held: Being a workma11 i11 a11 i11dustry
the proper remedy agai11st tenni11atio11 of his service is u11der S. 4-K a11d 11ot
under U.P. Public Services (Tribu11al) Act-V.P. Public Services (Tribunal)
Act, 1976, S. 1(4)(e)-Service Law.
H
Words and Phrases :
930
(
\
\
•
SAMISHTADUBEv. CITYBOARD,ETAWAH
931
"Industry''--M~aning of-In the conte.xt of S. 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial A
Disputes Act, 1947.
"Workman''-Meaning of-In the Context of S. 2(z) of the U.P. In-
dustlial Disputes Act, 1947.
"Ordinwily''-Meaning of-In the conte.xt of S. 6-P of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
The appellant was employed on daily wages as a typist/clerk and the
respondent terminated her services after she had put in a service of 3
months and 27 days. Being aggrieved the appellant raised an industrial
dispute before the Sate Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. In-
dustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that the termination of
B
c
the appellant's appointment could not be termed as invalid but held that,
even-so, the principle of "last come, first go" applied even in the case of
those employed on daily wages and, therefore, passed an awared to effect
that in case workmen junior to the appellant were retained the appellant D
must be considered for regularisation by re-appointment on the basis of
her seniority .
pie respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng·
ing the aforesaid award of the Labour Court. The High Court held that
since the appellant was employed in the administrative office of the Nagar E
Palika she was not employed in connection with any activity that might
amount to an "industry". The High Court also denied the relief to the
appellant on the ground that she liad put in only 3 months and 27 days of
service and that the question of senior or junior hardly arose in the case of
daily-wage appointments. The High Court also held that the appellant F
could go before the Services Tribunal. On these grounds the High Court
allowed the writ petition and set aside the award. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. All the employees in the General Administrative Depart· G
ment in the Municipal Board would become employees in an "industry"
within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and if they satisfy the definition of'workmen' under Section 2(z) of the U.P.
Act, they will be entitled to seek a reference to the Labour Court. [934-D]
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.A. Rajappa, [1978) 2 SCC H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999) 1 S.C.R.
A 213 and Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Its Employees, [1960) 2 SCR 942,
followed.
1.2. This Court in Bihar State Road Tra11spo1t Corporation's case
treated a person doing clerical work in the industry as a ''workman". There-
fore, the appellant who was performing the work of a typist/clerk falls
B within the definition of 'workman' in Section 2(z) ef the U.P. Act.. [935-D)
c
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their WorkmExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.