BHANWAR SINGH, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated June 11, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the award) passed by the Industrial Tribunal (II) U. P., Lucknow.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that Sitapur Eye Hospital, Faizabad, is a charitable eye- hospital, which is a branch of the Base Hospital at Sitapur. It is run by a society known as Faizabad District Eye Relief Society, Faizabad. The opposite party No. 2 Mohammad Salim Ansari was a ward-boy working in a temporary capacity in the petitioners' hospital. He was appointed with effect from April 1, 1983. However, his services were terminated vide order dated January 21, 1984 by the Medical Officer incharge, Eye Hospital, Faizabad and in lieu of one month's notice, he was paid one month's salary. Mr. Ansari raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Tribunal. The petitioners and Mr. Mohammad Salim Ansari filed their written statements. As Mr. Ansari did not complete his service for one year, provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted. He was not entitled to claim retrenchment compensation for he had not completed one year's service. However, the Tribunal held that the opposite party No. 2 was entitled to claim retrenchment compensation as well and since the petitioners failed to do so, Mr. Ansari was entitled to be reinstated to his post. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ansari opened his own chemist shop just behind the petitioners' hospital by the name of Sunaina Medical Store and since he was running a profitable business, he was not entitled to any compensation from the petitioners. The petitioners, however, expressed their willingness to pay the retrenchment compensation but assailed the award on the count of reinstatement.
(3.) Mr. Ansari filed his counter-affidavit and protected the award in his favour. The petitioners were covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. From the petitioners' own record, it was established that he was recruited as ward boy with effect from December 1, 1971 and from October 1, 1982 to January 20, 1984, he worked continuously without any break and got his wages. Thus, he had completed more than 240 days in a year and he was, therefore, entitled for the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. His termination being contrary to the provisions of the said Act was illegal. As a matter of fact, he was given a charge-sheet on January 14, 1984 but no enquiry was done. Since his termination was made without following the principles of natural justice and completing the enquiry, the Industrial Tribunal rightly set aside the order of termination. In fact he was victimised by the officers of the petitioners and his termination was the result of prolonged victimisation. Further, Mr. Ansari denied the petitioners' allegation that he was running a chemist shop and earning huge profits. As pleaded by him, he was sitting idle at home with no income from any source of livelihood. In these circumstances, the petitioners' services were rightly restored by virtue of the impugned order.;