http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4008 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ram Nayak

RESPONDENT: U.P. State Sugar Corporation

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & D.K.Jain

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T TARUN  CHATTERJEE,J. 1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the  final judgment and order dated 10th July, 2006 passed by the  Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.5385  of 1998 whereby the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by  the respondent and set aside the award dated 5th June, 1997 passed by  the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi, U.P. in Adjudication  Dispute No.89 of 1994 directing re-instatement of the appellant with  continuity of service and payment of full back wages by the  respondent \026 U.P. State Sugar Corporation (for short ’the  Corporation’).  3.      The following reference was made for adjudication before the  Labour Court : "Whether the termination of service by the  employer of their workman Ram Nayak from 1st  June 1990 was bad or invalid."   The said reference came to be registered as Adjudication Dispute  No.89 of 1994 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi,  U.P. The appellant claimed that he was working under the erstwhile  Ratna Sugar Mills on the "appointed day" under the U.P. Sugar  Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the  Acquisition Act"). On and from 24/4/1989, Ratna Sugar Mills had  vested with the Corporation as the said date was the "appointed day"  under Section 2(A) of the Acquisition Act. However, the service of  the appellant was terminated by an oral order for which the reference  was made. The Labour Court, after considering, both the oral and the  documentary evidence on record, held that the oral termination order  was bad and, therefore, directed re-instatement of the appellant in the  Corporation with continuity of service and back-wages. This award  was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court by way of a  writ petition.  As noted herein above, the High Court allowed the writ  petition and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court solely on  the ground that the award could not be allowed to stand in view of  Section 16(3) of the Acquisition Act. We may keep it on record that  the High Court, while setting aside the award, had not gone into the  merits whether the appellant had failed to prove that his oral  termination order was bad or invalid in law.  4.      Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this  appeal has been preferred by the appellant. After hearing the  arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and  considering the provisions of Section 10 read with Section 16(3) of  the Act, we are of the firm opinion that a finding whether the  appellant was working under the respondent on the "appointed day"  under the Acquisition Act was necessary. For that purpose, it would  be appropriate to direct the appellant to approach the prescribed  authority under Section 10 read with Section 16(3) of the Act for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

finding whether he was exclusively employed in connection with the  scheduled undertaking before the appointed day as we are of the view  that the Acquisition Act, being a special act, is conferred with the  power to make such a finding.   5. In this view of the matter, we feel it proper and appropriate to direct  the appellant to approach the "prescribed authority" under Section 10  read with Section 16(3) of the Act for a finding on the aforesaid  question.  The appellant shall approach the prescribed authority by  making an application within eight weeks from this date.  The  prescribed authority shall thereafter determine the question within two  months from the date of filing of the application before it by the  appellant after giving due hearing to the parties and permitting them  to lead evidence. In the event, the prescribed authority comes to a  finding that the appellant was working with the scheduled undertaking  on the appointed day, the writ petition filed by the Corporation before  the High Court shall automatically stand restored and the High Court  shall, thereafter, decide the writ petition on merits after taking into  consideration the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority in  compliance with our directions made in this regard. If, however, the  prescribed authority comes to a finding that the appellant was not  working with the erstwhile employer on the appointed day, this appeal  shall stand dismissed and the award shall also stand set aside. The  appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will be no  order as to costs.