- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This writ petition is directed against the award dated 7.4.1999 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 95 of 1998. 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-Respondent No. 2 Mewa Lal w.e.f. 21.7.1991 was just and valid or not? The case of Respondent No. 2 was that he was appointed as Chowkidar/ Beldar on 10.10.1988 and worked on the said post continuously till 20.7.1991 and his services were terminated without payment of any retrenchment compensation. The Petitioner-employer pleaded before the Labour Court that according to their records the workman had worked with them in the year 1988-89 only for one month on muster roll from 8.11.1988 to 7.12.1988 and thereafter again for one month in the same manner from 21.5.1989 to 20.6.1989 as Chowkidar. The workman examined himself and filed certain documents. In a very cryptic manner, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in para 8 of the award held that the fact that the workman was appointed on 10.10.1988 and continuously worked till 20.7.1991 stood proved by documents filed by the workman and his oral statement. Absolutely nothing regarding nature of the document was mentioned in the award.
(2.) This Court on 15.9.2010 directed learned Counsel for the parties to bring on record the documentary evidence filed by them before the Labour Court. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Counsel for the workman-Respondent. First annexure is photostat copy of some certificate in which date is not readable, (it appears to be 2.4.1995). However, in the typed copy the date is shown as 20.3.1989. According to the said certificate, the Respondent No. 2 worked with the Petitioner for six months in 1988-1989 as Chowkidar / Beldar. Even the precise period of working is not mentioned. The stamp below the signature of issuing authority is not legible. The other document is a certificate issued by three colleague of Respondent No. 2 stating that from 10.10.1988 till 20.3.1989, Respondent No. 2 was working under Sri B.B. Saxena, J.E. The next document is receipt or order of issuing certain materials on 20.1.1989 to Petitioner. The receipt is signed by the workman himself. On the basis of this documentary evidence, Labour Court held that Petitioner had continuously worked from 10.10.1988 to 20.7.1991. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that the certificates filed by the workman were absolutely forged. Unless it is mentioned in the certificate of working that on the basis of which record the certificate is being issued it cannot be of any value. In any case in the certificate the only thing which was mentioned was that the workman had worked for six months. Even if it was correct still six months do not amount to 240 days.
(3.) The impugned award is virtually No. award in the eye of law. Neither it is based on any evidence nor it shows least application of mind. Through the said award reinstatement with full back wages was directed.;