JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
dated 10.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8784 of 2002 and also against
judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the High Court of
Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No. 118006 of
2011 by allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-employer
and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court which
substituted the same by issuing direction to the respondent-employer
(for short "the employer") to pay a sum of [pic]1,00,000/- as
damages to the appellant-workman. The direction issued by the High
Court in its judgment further states that the amount shall either be
paid through draft to the workman or deposited before the Labour
Court within three months for immediate payment to the workman. In
case of default, 12% interest per annum shall be payable on
[pic]1,00,000/- after three months till actual
payment/deposit/realisation.
(3.)However, the backdrop of industrial dispute between the parties
is briefly stated hereunder to find out whether the appellant is
entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.
It is the case of the appellant-workman that he was appointed as
Labour Supervisor in the employer's factory on 30.12.1992 and he worked
continuously in terms of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short "the I.D. Act") in the said post till 28.7.1998- the day
on which his services were terminated. It is the case of the appellant-
workman that he has worked for six calendar years from the date of his
appointment till the termination of his service and he has rendered more
than 240 days of continuous service in every calendar year before his
termination. The respondent-employer terminated the services of appellant-
workman on 27.7.1998 as per practice with the reason 'sanction expired'.
The respondent-employer neither paid retrenchment compensation nor issued
any notice or paid wages in lieu of the same to the appellant-workman as
mandated under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short
"the U.P. I.D. Act"). The respondent-employer engaged the appellant-
workman for work against a post which was permanent in nature but his
appointment was made only for a temporary period from 1992 to 1998 with
oblique motive to deprive his statutory rights. At the end of every
working year, the workman was handed over a receipt of 'relieved from
work' and after 4-6 days, he was again engaged for three or six months
but without proper procedure and in this manner, he was continuously made
to work for full one year and each time the annual increase in wages was
shown in the fresh appointment letter. During the entire period of
service of the appellant-workman with the respondent-employer, the
management followed the process of annually terminating him from service
and again reappointing him in the same post by assigning the same Badge
No., ID No. in the same department of Construction Division with the
marginal increase of salary and dearness allowance per month.