D.P.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners, while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, have impeached an award of the Labour Court, Agra, dated October 23, 1983, in Adjudication Case No. 86 of 1981, seeking relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, as set up by [he parties and relevant to the controversy in the present case, are: (a) The services of Sri Ramesh Chandra (Respondent No. 1), who was appointed on a permanent post of Sweeper in the Municipal Board, Sirsagani, District Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Board'), were terminated illegally on January 23, 1980, on account of his union activities, through a verbal order whereby he was required for not turning up on duty w.e.f. January 24, 1980, but despite his having reported on duty, as usual, was not allowed to do work. The termination was said to be bad as neither any notice nor any charge-sheet was given to him and the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') were not complied with. (b) The petitioners (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') came up with the case that the services of Respondent No. 1, whose appointment was made on a temporary basis against the permanent post of Sweeper in the Municipal Board on July 2, 1976 in the vacancy caused on April 22, 1976 on account of dismissal of one Sri Banwari Lal were terminated as a result of subsequent reinstatement of Sri Banwari Lalunder the orders of the Administrator dated January 23, 1980. The employer raised three-fold objections pertaining to jurisdiction of the Labour Court: (i) That the provisions of the U.P. Act were inapplicable in the case of employees of the Municipal Board as the Municipal Board was not an 'industry' and Respondent No. 1 was not a 'workman'; (ii) That the services of the employees of the Municipal Board having been governed under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the service rules framed thereunder, known as the U.P. Municipal Board Servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination) Rules (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules') the provisions of the U.P. Act would be inapplicable; and (iii) That the Respondent No. 1 being a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, had the remedy by way of filing a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal.
(3.) The Labour Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Works ana Sewage Board's case (1978-I-LLJ-349), held that the Municipal Board was an industry and Respondent No. 1 was a workman and the dispute raised by him was maintainable under the provisions of the U.P. Act. While finding that neither disciplinary proceedings were taken against Respondent No. 1 nor any domestic enquiry was made, the Labour Court held that his services were not terminated on account of reinstatement of Sri Banwari Lal. The services were held as continuous from the date of appointment upto the date of termination and the termination was held as retrenchment not being in accord with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Act. Orders for reinstatement were passed giving continuity of service with full wages together with other benefits till the date of reinstatement.;