- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the Labour Court Award passed in Adjudication Case No. 32/1995 dated March 4, 1995 whereby it has been held that the workman respondent No. 2 herein was illegally disengaged without giving him retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court has ordered the reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 with all full back wages and other consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is an Apex Cooperative Society, registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, engages daily wagers and casual labourers to meet its temporary requirement of work load. It engages daily wagers in its various sales depots to meet the work pressure. The respondent No. 2 was engaged on October 1, 1985 on daily wages. In pursuance of the work order dated August 15, 1987 issued by the then Managing Director, he was again engaged vide order dated March 22, 1988 for 89 days on daily wage basis. His engagement came to an end w.e.f. September 12, 1987. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was never engaged thereafter. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 after about 4 years. At the instance of respondent No. 2 the matter was referred by the state Government to the Labour Court for adjudication to determine as to whether the disengagement of the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. September 12, 1987 is legal, valid and justified and if not then to what relief he is entitled. The parties filed their respective written statements before the Labour Court. The evidence was led by them. The Labour Court in the impugned award came to the finding that the respondent No. 2 has worked from October 1, 1985 to September 12, 1987, without any break in service. It consequently found that since no retrenchment compensation was given to the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2, is entitled for reinstatement/re-engagement with all consequential benefits including back wages. Challenging the said award the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the employer.
(3.) Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that indisputably the respondent No. 2 was engaged on daily wage basis and, therefore, he does not come within the definition of workman as contained in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Elaborating the argument, he submits that the engagement of daily wager comes to an end automatically at the end of the day. The respondent No. 2, according to him, was engaged as and when his services were required by way of casual engagement. He further submits that the dispute was raised by the respondent No. 2 after a considerable period of time i.e. after about 4 years and as such the Labour Court committed illegality in entertaining and deciding the said dispute. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the plea of limitation sought to be urged herein was not pressed in service before the Labour Court and as such the said plea cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the present writ petition. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Mohd. Arshad v. Industrial Tribunal U.P. at Allahabad,2004 3 CLR 824. In support of his submission, he contended that even a daily wager is entitled for retrenchment compensation.;