- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Award dated 13.07.2016 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Adjudication Case No.90 of 2001 (U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rakesh Singh).
(3.) The petitioners represented by Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Shri Mata Prasad Yadav, have submitted that the opposite party no.2, Rakesh Singh, was engaged as Muster Roll Daily Wage Employee with effect from 10.05.1987 and continued upto 28.04.1990 on which date he abandoned the services and there was no order of termination passed. After ten years, the opposite party no.2 raised an Industrial dispute. The petitioners submitted before the Conciliation Officer that no proceedings can be initiated after a lapse of ten years. The Conciliation failed and thereafter, a Reference was made by the Government to the opposite party no.1 as to whether the termination of the opposite party no.2 on 28.04.1990 was justified and if not justified, then to what relief the opposite party no.2 was entitled to? Notice was issued to the petitioners and they filed a written statement wherein they again stated that opposite party no.2 had raised the Industrial dispute in the year 2010, although he alleges to have been terminated without notice and retrenchment compensation on 28.04.1990. The petitioners also denied the claim of the workman that he was paid his wages for three years and issued an Experience Certificate by the Junior Engineer concerned. It was the case of the petitioners that the opposite party no.2 could not have been engaged as the Department had stopped engaging Muster Roll employees since 01.07.1979.;