Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 19.01.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in adjudication case No. 195 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of Petitioners - employers terminating the services its workman Respondent No. 2 Suresh Kumar w.e.f. 08.02.1994 was just and valid or not? The Labour Court held that the termination order dated 08.02.1994 was illegal and directed that the workman should be reinstated w.e.f. 08.02.1994 with full back wages. The Respondent No. 2 was appointed as daily labour chawkidar at Dehradun Logging Division in Pathari Section, which at that time was under the jurisdiction of Divisional Logging Manager, Dehradun. In the administrative reshuffling Pathari Section was brought under the jurisdiction of Divisional Logging Manager, Muzaffar Nagar on 08.04.1992. After about two years i.e. on 08.02.1994 of Divisional Logging Manager, Dehradun wrote a letter to his counter part as Muzaffar Nagar, copy of the said letter is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the said letter that on 04.02.1994 they had talked on telephone, in continuance of that a list of 20 employees was being sent with the request that persons at serial No. 7 to 20 should be got joined by Divisional Logging Manager, Muzaffar Nagar. In the said list name of Respondent No. 2 was at serial No. 7 i.e. at the top of the list of the persons who were required to join at Muzaffar Nagar. However, Respondent No. 2 was not permitted to join (even though Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 himself did not report on duty, however, the assertion was wrong and Labour Court has rightly held it to be wrong). The employers also contended that only 9 workmen reported on duty.
(3.) IN para 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that on 19.06.1995 Dehradun Logging Division retrenched 55 employees including Respondent No. 2, copy of the retrenchment order is Annexure -2 to the writ petition and at the bottom of the said order it was mentioned that the employees must receive the retrenchment compensation and one months pay in lieu of notice. In Annexure -2 it was mentioned that retrenchment would be effective from 26.06.1995. This retrenchment order dated 19.06.1995 completely disproves the assertion of the employer that the workman Respondent No. 2 had effectively been transferred to Muzaffar Nagar Division and had not reported on duty there. If it had been so then there would not have been any occasion for the Dehradun Division to retrench the services of Respondent No. 2.;