- (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 alongwith the continuity of service and 50% salary as back wages. Beside this a sum of Rs. 500 was also awarded as cost to the 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 fitter 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 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without following the procedure prescribed for such retrenchment.
(3.) 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 Ors. 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 6N of the Act and Rule 42 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 framed thereunder. 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.;