- (1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of Labour Court dated 13.7.2005 published on £ 31.8.2005. made in Adjudication Case No.75 of 2003 referred to it on 5.4.2003. By the said award the Labour court has directed reinstatement of workman/respondent No.5 along 2 with the continuity of service and 50% salary as back wages. Beside this a sum of Rs.500/- was also awarded as cost to the 5 workman to be paid by the employer.
(2.) IT was case of the respondent No.5 that he was appointed as daily wager pipe line fit­ter in Jal Sansthan, Hamirpur Division, Jhansi on 26.9.1991 against a sanctioned post. His work as pipe line fitter was satisfactory and was appreciated by senior officers. It was also his case that he was appointed as trained fit­ter and was getting the wages of trained titter during the period he worked as such w.e.f. 26.9.1991 to 31.12.1992. But all of a sudden he received information from his office on 4.1.1993 that his services were terminated from the post of pipe line fitter, as such no work was taken from him since January, 1993. It was also his case that the post of pipe line fitter was lying vacant in Jal Sansthan, District Hamirpur, Division Jhansi but the ser­vices of respondent No.5 were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing against the principles of natural justice, which amounted to his retrenchment within the meaning of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without following the procedure prescribed for such retrenchment. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of termination the respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10189 of 1993 Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. General Man­ager, Jal Sansthan, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others. In the said writ petition, the allega­tion of the petitioners was that the respon­dent No.5 was I.T.I, in electrical trade and not in fitter trade and further allegation was that since the respondent No.5 .was engaged as muster roll employee and had worked on daily wage basis for 30 days sanctioned on each time and had worked only for a period of one year and three months, it was for him to prove that he had completed 240 days ac­tual service to become entitled for getting benefits under Section 6-N of the Act and Rule 42 of U.P. Industrial Rules 1957 framed there under. It was further alleged that the burden of proof was upon the workman to establish by oral and documentary evidence that he was appointed against permanent va­cant post in accordance with law.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties, this Court vide judgement and order dated 11.10.2002 had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5 on account of availability of alternative remedy to him under U.P. In­dustrial Disputes Act and rules framed there­ under with the following observations:- "The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Indus­trial Disputes Act. 1947. The disputed ques­tions of facts involved in this writ petition require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced before the Labour Court. The ques­tion as to whether the termination is legal and valid, is within realm of First Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This Court will not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding disputed questions of facts by taking evidence for which the Labour Court is best equipped. In these circumstances, it would be proper to rel­egate the petitioner to the alternative and ef­ficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court. If the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will call the parties and try to amica­bly settle the dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately re­ferred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be, for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Labour Court in the manner prescribed and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Rules, 1957 for filing written statement, rejoinder docu­ments and evidence etc. If necessary, the pro­ceedings may be held on day-to-day basis un­der Rule 12(4) of the Rules. The case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not later than six months from the date of receipt of reference. For these reasons the writ petition is dis­missed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs." ;