9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Pursuant to the industrial reference made by the State of U.P. under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act") to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut for deciding the legality and correctness of the termination order of the appellant (workman) passed by respondent No.1 (employer), the Industrial Tribunal, by award dated 27.06.1998 (AnnexureP8) answered the reference in appellant's favour and directed his reinstatement in service with payment of back wages in Adjudication Case No.137 of 1995. 4. Respondent No.1 (employer) felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad against the aforementioned award. 5. By impugned order dated 29.11.2007, the High Court allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a finding of fact, this Court cannot examine such question de novo by appreciating the whole evidence adduced by the parties again in these appeals. In our view, the High Court examined the matter in detail and the finding of the High Court on this question being a finding of fact is binding on this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant (workman) placing reliance on the decision in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh & Ors., 2007 (4) SCC 94 and referring to the provisions of the UP Industrial Disputes Act contended that the issue was not properly decided by the High Court. 15. According to learned counsel, firstly, the High Court erred in travelling in the facts of the case in its writ jurisdiction which it could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs during pendency of the litigation, the same will not be recoverable from the appellant on the strength of the impugned order. According to learned counsel for respondent No.1(employer), this amount is quite a substantial one and is more than two lacs. Be that as it may. 20. Such direction issued by the High Court against respondent No.1(employer), in our view, is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in that behalf. 21. Indeed, this Court has held that the proceedings under Section 17B of ID Act are independent proceedings in nature and are not dependent upon the final order passed in the main proceedings. 22. It is ruled that if the Court/Tribunal, eventually upholds the termination order as being legal against the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
