Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 24.12.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether action of Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman salesman -Respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 22.03.1994 was just and valid or not? According to the workman he was appointed on 1.8.1987 and was posted at Allahabad Civil Lines Branch of the Petitioner, that he fell ill from 13.3.1994 to 21.3.1994 and was under treatment of E.S.I. Doctor, however, when he reported on duty on 22.3.1994 he was not permitted to resume duty and was orally told that his services had been terminated. The workman immediately complained to Deputy Labour Commissioner through application dated 24.3.1994. It was further contended by the workman that no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The employer contended that the workman worked from 31.4.1992 to 11.3.1994. It was further contended that often workmen were engaged on daily basis due to exigency of work and the Respondent No. 3 was also engaged as such. The Industrial Tribunal through the impugned award directed reinstatement with 50% back wages.
(3.) EVEN daily wagers are entitled to the protection of Section 6N of U.P. I.D. Act. It was admitted by the employer Petitioner that the workman had continuously worked from 31.03.1992 to 11.03.1994 (about 2 years). The absence was only of 8 or 9 days. According to the workman he had fallen ill. Even if this version is not believed still for absence of 8 days services can not be terminated vide Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singh, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. (Supp) 1591 and Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. (Supp) 1817 and Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Surender, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. (Supp) 622. Moreover absence is misconduct hence domestic inquiry should have been held.;