SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri S. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in each writ petition and Sri S.P. Giri and H.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the workmen respondents in the writ petitions.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 in each writ petition was engaged as Scaler on daily wage basis. Their duties were to weigh the woods and help in its selling etc. Each workman was engaged in Muzaffarnagar Logging Division of petitioner U.P. Forest Corporation. According to the petitioner after amendment of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, a large area of forest in U.P. was declared as national park and sanctuary and felling of the trees was banned and entry into the said area was completely banned which resulted in drastic reduction in the quantum of work -load of the petitioner, which was almost 50%. Accordingly, the corporation decided to disengage the daily labours/ daily wagers. In anticipation of such move 427 workers filed Writ Petition No.4209 of 1998 at Lucknow Bench of the this Court which was decided on 12.07.1994 giving liberty to the petitioner to retrench D.L. workers after following the procedure laid down in Section 6 -N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter hundreds of employees were retrenched in 1995 including the respondents in these writ petitions. According to the petitioner retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6 -N of U.P.I.D. Act was paid to each workman. The retrenched workmen including the nine workmen who are respondents in these writ petitions raised industrial disputes. Matters were referred to the Labour Court (II) U.P. Meerut. Adjudication Cases Numbers 32, 35 and 36, all of 1996 concerning Yadram, Dharm Pal and Giriraj Singh workman respondent No.2 in the third, sixth and seventh writ petition respectively were decided on 30.10.1998 holding that their retrenchment w.e.f. 31.05.1995 was neither just nor legal. Accordingly reinstatement with full back wages was directed. In the award it was noted that each workman in his oral statement had stated that at the time of accepting the retrenchment compensation they raised their objections. Adjudication Cases Nos.30, 31, 33, 34 and 37, all of 1996 concerning Kamal Singh, Virendra Singh son of Chhet Ram Singh, Rajendra Singh, Virendra Singh son of Dal Chand and Ram Kumar, workman respondent No.2 in the second, fourth, fifth, first and eighth writ petition respectively were also decided by the same Presiding Officer of Labour Court (II), U.P. Meerut on 30.10.1998 in the same manner with the said directions. Adjudication Case No.78 of 1997 concerning Bageshwar Prasad Sharma, workman respondent No.2 in the 9th writ petition was decided on 15.03.2002 by Presiding Officer (I), U.P. Meerut in the same manner with the same directions.
(3.) SERVICES were terminated through orders passed on different dates in March, 1995, however the retrenchment in case of each workman was to be effective from 31.03.1995.;