S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Vijay Ratan Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the employer and Shri K.P.Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Miss Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the workmen. First writ petition has been filed by the employer and the second writ petition by eight concerned workmen. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that as the second writ petition by the workmen is for implementation of the award which has been challenged by the employer in the first writ petition hence after decision on the first writ petition, second writ petition will automatically become infructuous.
(2.) THE first writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 1.2.2007 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.), Allahabad in eleven adjudication cases numbered as adjudication case Nos. 17 of 2000 to 26 of 2000 and adjudication case No. 69 of 1999. The workmen had complained that their services had wrongly been terminated on the following dates: JUDGEMENT_487_ADJ4_2011Image1.jpg Through the impugned award three more adjudication cases were decided i.e. adjudication case No. 20 of 2000 in respect of workman Chotey Lal Yadav, adjudication case No. 22 of 2000 in respect of workman Mohammad Sayden Hasnain and adjudication case No. 23 of 2000 in respect of workman Ram Shringar. These workmen have neither been impleaded as respondents in the first writ petition nor petitioners in the second writ petition. The adjudication case in respect of workman Banwari Lal was made the leading case.
(3.) EARLIER the award was given on 9.8.2002 through which the employer was directed to pay compensation to the workmen instead of reinstatement. The said award was challenged by both the parties through four writ petitions the leading one being writ petition No. 19855 of 2003, Banwari Lal and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad and another. The writ petitions were allowed on 10.6.2005 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court. After remand the award was given which is challenged through this writ petition. The relevant portion of earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.6.2005 is quoted below: "From the pleadings of the parties and the award it is apparently clear that the workmen have not completed 240 days service in the previous calendar year. Therefore, the applicability of Section 6-N in the facts of the present case does not arises nor the counsel for the workmen has made any attempt to establish the right of the workmen on the ground of violation of Section 6- N before this Court. So far as the issue of adoption of unfair labour practice by the employers is concerned, if entire case set up by the workmen is accepted, it would only mean that the employers had a requirement of certain number of employees in respect of permanent nature of work and instead of continuing the same set of employees, regularly the employers decided to take work on rotational basis from amongst the petitioners. Thus the issue, which should have been considered by the Labour Court. In the facts of the case, was as to how many workmen were actually required to discharge the work, which was permanent in nature, against which the petitioners were appointed on rotational basis. The Labour Court was also required to decide as to which of the employees were appointed at the first instance as workman for performing the permanent work in as much as it is only against such workmen who were appointed first that the allegations of unfair labour practice, having been adopted by the employers, could have been sustained and the relief granted. The aforesaid observation has been made in the back ground that if some of the petitioner were appointed after the earlier appointees were illegally refused work, the appointments of subsequent employees itself become illegal. From the award of the Labour Court it is apparently clear that the Labour Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has failed to record any finding in respect of the issue. Consequently, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that in respect of all the workmen the management has adopted an unfair labour practice so as to entitle them the relief of reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that if the employers have adopted an unfair labour practice, it would render the entire actions of the employers as illegal in as much as unfair labour : practice vitiates all the actions of the employers. Reference AIR 1996 S.C. 132(Para-7). It is needless to point out that the issue, as to whether the employers adopted unfair labour practice, must be determined by the Labour Cort on the evidence to be lead and on material being brought on record to establish as to whether appointment to the workmen on rotational basis was bona fide or not." In the earlier award dated 9.8.2002 damages of different amounts were awarded to different workmen ranging from Rs. 5,000/-to Rs. 10,000/-.;