PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Punjab Agriculture University and Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., (Decided on 26.05.2011)
Daily wage workers - Services alleged to be terminated illegally - No show cause notice issued, no inquiry conducted and also no payment towards retrenchment compensation made - Management contended that appointment was not against any regular post and jobs were abandoned on own hence there arises no question of reinstatement
Held, the workmen were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation and hence order of termination forming subject matter of references under adjudication cannot be said to be either justified or in order and hence this issue in all the references were decided against the management.
The term "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) mean any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute. A conjoint reading of this provision would reveal that even if a person is engaged on daily wages and has completed the continuous service as defined under Section 25B, then, his services cannot be terminated without following the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Act, irrespective of the fact that he was not appointed against a regular post as alleged on behalf of the management. Therefore, the contentions as raised by Management held to be as not sustainable.
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Matri Sadan Vs. Himalaya Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (Decided on 26.05.2011)
Environmental Pollution - Activities of crushing stone boulders and mining from the nearby flowing stream of Ganga in the outskirts of town Haridwar - Right to business as constitutional rights - Exercise thereof
The Constitution does not recognize franchise of rights to business, which are dependent on grants by the State or business affected by public interest. In a galaxy of the cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that these restrictions can be stretched up to prohibition of trade or industry, if its affects are deleterious and dangerous to the society at large. It has almost now been settled that no inflexible answer can be offered as to what industry should be brought to the total prohibition and what not. There are no abstract or fixed principles, which laid the universal application in all cases where the closure of the trade and industry deserve to be enjoined. Each case is to be judged to its on merits. The Court must determine the reasonableness of restriction to be imposed for the closure of the trade or industry by objective standards and not by subjective ones.
A number of deleterious affects which the stone crusher, as in the instant case, is causing to the entire of its surrounding to the extent of being fatal for the poor villagers besides creating an incorrigible hazard affects to the ecology of the region hence in these circumstances, the preservation of the interest of the society at large should take priority as against the profit hunting motives of any individual.
If the Government of Uttarakhand, in exercise of the powers vested under Mela Act, has made the order to extend the Kumbh Mela Area and for closure of activity of mining and running by this crusher including hording of the boulders in large quantity then there is nothing wrong in order of the Government taking note of the changed circumstances and heavy protest from all the corners of the society against the creation of hazard by the crusher. It was held that the stone crusher can not be allowed to run as such because it's very existence in the area is against what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta with the result that the order of the Government to close down this crusher at the present location, held to be as sustained.