- (1.) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No. 32285 of 1995, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants as it found no error in the award of the Labour Court dated 18.02.1995 passed in Suit/Dispute No. 112/93 in favour of the respondent who was appointed as Routine Grade Clerk on 08.05.1983 and he was dismissed from service on 10.10.1983 without any notice to him. The High Court concurred with the Award of the Labour Court. The High Court further found that the services of the respondent had been terminated illegally by the appellants without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(2.) After perusal of the record, the Labour Court in its Award observed that it is clear that the respondent was paid salary till 19.10.1983 and in the cross examination, the witness on behalf of the appellants could not tell whether the respondent had worked till 19.10.1983. The Labour Court further observed while answering the points of dispute that if the appointment of the respondent was intended to be temporary, then he should not have been issued orders to be employed against vacant seat after 30.06.1983 and if orders were passed and there was no work then the services of other employees who were appointed along with him also should have been terminated. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court also found that services of respondent did not end on 10.10.1983, rather they were terminated on 20.10.1983. The Labour Court was of the view that termination order passed against the respondent was not proper and that the appointment order dated 06.05.1983 contained no mention of the fact that the services of the respondent could be terminated at any time, without any prior notice. Thus, the Labour Court has passed an Award in favour of the respondent to reinstate him in service after holding that the termination order passed against him is not legal and valid.
(3.) Aggrieved of the Award of the Labour Court, the appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court questioning the correctness of the same urging certain grounds. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record holding that the termination of the services of the respondent by the appellants was a clear case of an unfair labour practice and the same is in violation of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court further observed that the Labour Court had stated in its award that artificial breaks in services of the respondent are to be counted and the respondent had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The High Court found no illegality or infirmity with the Award of the Labour Court and concurred with the Award of the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. Hence, the present appeal.;