Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties on the application seeking extension of time for compliance of order dated 18.01.2007 as well as on the merit of the writ petition.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 04.04.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi in Adjudication Case No. 316 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Mallu Prasad, Respondent No. 3 in this writ petition w.e.f. 01.06.1987 was just and valid or not. The case of Respondent No. 3 was that he was appointed by the Petitioner on 07.02.1986 as dairy man and he worked continuously on the said post till 30.05.1987, hence he had completed 240 days in a calender year but no retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6 -N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was paid to him before his termination/ retrenchment. The case of the Petitioner employer was that supply of milk normally increases from September to March hence during this period temporary employees or daily wagers were employed and Petitioner was also employed in same capacity from 24.02.1987 to 23.05.1987. The appointment letter was produced by the Petitioner showing that the Respondent workman was appointed from 24.02.1987 to 23.05.1987 @ Rs. 16.60 per day. Some documents were summoned from the employer pertaining to the year 1986 & 1987 which it produced. There was no substantial dispute regarding date of termination (either 23rd or 30th May, 1987). The dispute was regarding date of appointment which according to the workman was 07.02.1986 while according to the employer it was 24.02.1987. However the labour court on perusal of some vouchers held that the workman Respondent had been paid some amount in February, 1986, thereafter in March, 1986, thereafter in April, 1986 and that it was also shown that on 4th, 11th and 18th March, 1986 which were holidays, workman Respondent No. 1 had worked and had been paid wages and that workman was also paid for May, 1986, and that through Voucher No. 492, dated 09.07.1986 payment of June, 1986 was also made. It is also mentioned in the impugned award that payment register of daily wagers was also summoned and produced by the employer which showed that Respondent No. 3 had continuously worked from 07.02.1986 till 28.02.1987. Accordingly, reinstatement with full back wages was directed.
(3.) BY reading the judgment of the labour court, it is quite clear that workman Respondent was appointed as daily wager.;