S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant is an authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Act). It is a Local Authority within the meaning of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
(3.) For its various projects, it appoints daily wagers on an ad hoc basis. Respondent herein was appointed by the Authority on 1.4.1988 as a Amin. Appellant contends that he was appointed on a periodical basis depending on the order of sanction issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time. On the premise that the sanction for the said appointment was granted only upto 30.3.1990, he was disengaged from services. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent. The State made a reference for adjudication thereof by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Ghaziabad which is to the following effect : "Whether the disengagement/deprivation, by the employers, of their workman Shri Ashok Kumar s/o Mahipal Singh, Amin from the work with effect from 1.5.1990 is proper and lawful If not, what benefit/reliefs the workman concerned is entitled to get, along with any other particulars - 3A. Before the Labour Court, first respondent contended that since his date of recruitment, i.e., on and from 1.4.1988 till 9.4.1990, he continued to work. It, however, appears that his services had been dispensed with on 1.4.1990. It was urged that as despite the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days in one year, the mandatory requirements of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with, the same was illegal and, thus, he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Appellant, however, in his written statement apart from denying and disputing the averments made by the respondent that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his retrenchment, categorically stated that as the Government did not create any post, no work from the first respondent could be taken and his services, therefore, automatically came to an end after 30.3.1990. The learned Labour Court in its award opined that the respondent No. 1 had worked for more than 240 days in an year and as the requirement of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. It was, however, directed : "He be re-employed accordingly." ;