- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) In this case I tried to persuade the parties to enter into compromise. Initially parties agreed, afterwards Respondent No. 2 had a change of mind. In this regard orders passed by me on 18.01.11 and 03.03.2011 are quoted below: 18.1.2011 On the persuasion of the court learned Counsel for both the parties agreed for settlement of dispute amicably. The suggestion of the court was made on the principles of Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure. The agreement is that the employer within one month will give permanent appointment to the workman Petitioner and thereupon the workman-Petitioner will not claim any back wages under the impugned award. Let the appointment be made positively within one month. List on 22.2.2011 for passing formal order of final disposal of the writ petition. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri V.B. Mishra, learned Counsel for employer-Respondent No. 2 within three days.
(3.) 3.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Shri V.B. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Jal Nigam states that the authorities have communicated to him that compromise is not possible. Learned Counsel for the workman has argued that 46 workmen were exactly similarly situated and the list is given on page Nos. 43-44 of the writ petition and all other 45 workmen were directed to be reinstated with full back wages however the same Presiding Officer of the labour court decided the matter against the Petitioner. Shri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman further states that High Court modified the awards given in favour of those 45 workers and instead of full back wages only 50% back wages were directed to be paid. Some judgments have been placed on rercord. Copies of the same shall also be supplied to Shri V.B. Mishra, learned Counsel the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were dismissed. Shri V.B. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed on record copy of few judgments in support of his contentions. Judgment is reserved. 3. Services of the Petitioner were terminated on 15.06.1991. The case of the employer Respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer VI Construction Division U.P. Jal Nigam Varanasi is that similar orders passed in June 1991 all the surplus staff which had been engaged after particular date of 1989 including the Petitioner was retrenched. Petitioner was Pump Attendant. Against termination order dated 15.06.1991 writ petition was filed in the High Court in which initially stay order was granted but afterwards it was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of approaching the labour Court. Thereafter industrial dispute was raised by the Petitioner and matter was referred to the labour court to decide as to whether the action of employer Respondent No. 2 terminating the services of Petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.1993 was just and valid or not. On 30.09.1993 the services had again been terminated after dismissal of the earlier writ petition.;