ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the correctness and validity of award dated 8.12.2008 passed by Labour Court (2), U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No.137 of 1994 published on 17.3.2010 contained in Annexure-8 of the writ petition, whereby the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service along with 60% back wages. The brief facts leading to the case are that the respondent no.1 due to exigency of service was engaged as daily wage labour (Beldar) on 1.8.1989 and thereafter for sometimes he intermittently worked, but he never completed 240 days in 12 calendar months prior to termination of his services. However, he himself abandoned his employment and started abstaining from work w.e.f. December, 1990. Despite abandoning his employment in the year 1990, he raised an industrial dispute claiming that he has continuously worked from 1989 to 30.4.1992 and his services were terminated orally by the Assistant Engineer. It was alleged by the workman that his services were wrongfully terminated and therefore, the State Government in exercise of powers U/s 4K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) referred the dispute to the Labour court for adjudication vide order dated 31.12.1993 as under :- D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh egsUnz iky flag iq+= Jh f'k'kqiky flag in csynkj dh lsok;sa fnukad 1&5&92 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk oS/kkfud gS+\ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed fdl fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr A Aforesaid reference was registered by the Labour Court, U.P. Ghaziabad as Adjudication Case No.137 of 1994. The petitioner filed its written statement. The respondent- workman also filed his written statement. The petitioner as well as respondent-workman filed their rejoinder statements reiterating their stand of written statement. It is stated that Subhas Chandra who worked as Assistant Engineer from 1988 to 1992 also deposed before the Labour Court in support of the case of petitioner as E.W.1. The respondent-workman also deposed before the Labour Court in support of his case as W.W.1.
(3.) IT is stated that the case set out by the petitioner in the written statement was that the respondent-workman worked for 22 days in July 1989, 26 days in August, 1989, 16 days in September, 1989, 26 days in April, 1990, 29 days in June, 1990, 25 days in September, 1990, 26 days in November, 1990 and 26 days in December, 1990 and thereafter he abandoned the employment of the petitioner and thus he could not complete 240 days prior to alleged termination of his services within 12 Calendar months, as such, it is a case of abandonment of employment and not of termination of service. On the other hand, the case set out by the respondent-workman was that from 1.8.1989 to 30th April, 1992 he had continuously worked and his services were wrongfully terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 N of U.P. Act and as such he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages.;