V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) NAGAR Nigam, Kanpur, through its Project Officer, has approached this Court questioning the validity of the award dated 28.10.1996 passed in Adjudication Case No. 160 of 1996 by Labour Court IV, Kanpur as well as subsequent subsequent order dated 04.04.1997 passed by Labour Court, Kanpur, wherein application for setting aside ex -parte award has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Rajesh Kumar Rawat has came up with claim that he had been engaged with the Petitioner's establishment as supervisor -cum -clerk w.e.f. 10.09.1989 and he functioned in the said capacity till 05.03.1991, and thereafter without giving any notice, as was required under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services were disengaged. After the said disengagement, belated industrial dispute was sought to be raised, and then the State Government on 16.05.1996 proceeded to make reference under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the term of the reference was as to whether the order disengaging services of Raj Kumar Rawat on 06.03.1991 was valid and in accordance with law, and in case it was found to be invalid, then the extent of relief which Raj Kumar Rawat was entitled to? After receipt of the aforesaid reference, it is reflected from the order -sheet starting with effect from 18.05.1996, wherein mention has been made that said reference in question had been received on 17.05.1996; same was directed to be registered and the concerned parties were directed to be informed by summons that they should appear on 28.06.1996. The order sheet further proceeds to mention that the employer's side is absent and the Respondent workman had filed his written statement and his letter of authority, and the next date fixed in the case was 15.07.1996. Thereafter, the order sheet mentions that again employer be sent notice by registered post and the next date fixed was 01.08.1996. On 01.08.1996, it is noted in the order sheet that notice be sent; same be awaited and the next date fixed was 07.08.1996. On 07.08.1996 note had been made that the registered summon so sent, had not been returned back, as such service was presumed to be sufficient and the matter was directed to be taken up on 21.08.1996. on 21,.08.1996, next date fixed was 29.08.1996. On 29.08.1996, next date fixed was 06.09.1996, and on 06.09.1996, next date fixed was 21.09.1996, then on 21.09.1996 a note was made that the employer was not present, and further note was made with regard to filing of affidavit and documents by Rajesh Kumar Rawat. Thereafter on 28.10.1996 award in question had been passed and same has been published on 29.01.1997. After the said award had been passed, the Petitioner in its turn after acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid award on 22.02.1997, moved an application for restoration. Said application had been rejected on 04.04.1997. At the said juncture, present writ petition was filed. Precise plea has been taken in the body of the writ petition is that entire proceedings before the Labour Court was exparte and further that at no point of time, Rajes Kumar Rawat had been engaged by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, as supervisor -cum -clerk, and to the contrary, it has been stated that he had been engaged for specific purpose under Section 4(iv) of the Census Act, 1948 and even remuneration for carrying out census activity was paid from the head, which had been sanctioned by the Census Department directly as per directives issued by the Central Government. Petitioner has submitted that census work was carried out by Rajesh Kumar Rawat with effect from 10.09.1990 till 06.03.1991; thus his engagement was for a period of 177 days only, and in lieu of the census work being carried out by him, he was paid honorarium; and there existed no relationship of employer and employee, as such at no point of time there was any occasion of retrenchment, and further it has been stated that entire proceedings had been manipulated and were exparte.
(3.) FROM the side of Rajesh Kumar Rawat, it has been sought to be contended that he was appointed in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur on 10.09.1989 as supervisor -cum -clerk against clear vacancy and he continued to work till 05.03.1991, and further he had moved application for being appointed on the post of clerk. On the said application report was submitted by Up Nagar Adhikari and the said report contained the signature of Deputy Administrator, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, in this background, it has been sought to be contended that he was illegally retrenched and thereafter, his services had been disengaged on 06.03.1991. It has also been sought to be contended that restoration application moved by the Petitioner had already been rejected for the simple reason that the same was moved beyond time even from the date of publication of the award and the award in question had become enforceable.;