- (1.) Time was granted to learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to file counter-affidavit on 14.2.1996. No counter-affidavit has been filed till date.
(2.) List of old cases to be taken up at 2.00 p.m. has been revised. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 inspite of repeated calls. Learned standing counsel for the Petitioner is present.
(3.) Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that by the impugned award dated 16.12.1994. the Industrial Tribunal-IV, U.P. Agra has given its award by recording that Respondent No. 2, Satyavir Singh was a workman and has been working continuously and therefore, in the event of his retrenchment, he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned standing counsel states that the workman had claimed regularisation in service and although the Tribunal found that there was no post available for regularisation, it has erroneously issued a direction to the Petitioner to create a post and regularize the service of the workman. He submits that as a consequence of the aforesaid award the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra has directed the recovery of Rs. 66,749.65p. as benefit to which the workman would have been entitled. He states that there was no direction with respect to payment of money and the award was only confined to the reference as to whether the workman was entitled to be regularized. According to learned standing counsel even in the award regularization has not been done, but direction has been issued to create a permanent post and when it is created, appoint the workman as regular employee. As such according to him when there was no monetary benefit involved unless the post was created by the State, the workman could neither be regularized on such non existent post nor could be entitled to any sum of money.;