- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Order dated 16.11.2010 on which date arguments were heard and judgment was reserved is quoted below: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Judgment reserved. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that under different orders passed in this writ petition Petitioner has paid Rs. 50,000/-as back wages to the workman Respondent and workman Respondent has been reinstated on 01.05.2008. These two facts are admitted by the learned Counsel of workman Respondent.
(2.) Order dated 01.05.2009 passed on the application filed by the employer is also quoted below: The case has been nominated to me by order of Hon. Senior Judge through order dated 24.04.2009. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that there is some delay in reinstatement of Respondent No. 2 in pursuance of stay order dated 13.09.2005. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Petitioners have taken back Respondent No. 2 in service on 01.05.2008. Delay in reinstatement of Respondent No. 2 in pursuance of interim order dated 13.09.2005 is condoned on the condition that Petitioner shall pay Rs. 50,000/-to Respondent No. 2 within six weeks. If ultimately while deciding this writ petition finally it is held that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to any wages prior to 01.05.2008 then this amount of Rs. 50,000/-will be adjusted in the said wages. Application is disposed of.
(3.) This writ petition is directed against award dated 16.03.2005 given by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I) U.P. Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 14 of 1990. The matter which was referred to the labour court as to whether the action of the Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Respondent No. 2, Nanhe Lal Yadav w.e.f. 01.03.1989 was just and valid or not. Earlier the matter was decided against the workman and it was held that he was not entitled to any relief. The said award was passed on 20.06.1991 against which workman filed Writ Petition No. 30231 of 1991. The said writ petition was allowed on 12.04.2004 and mater was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal. Copy of the said judgment of the High Court is Annexure-I to the writ petition. In the remand order, it was observed that the Industrial Tribunal shall specifically decide as to whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in any of the calendar years continuously or not? After remand the Industrial Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the workman holding that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year, hence termination of his services without payment of retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was bad in law. In Para-14 of the award, it was held that the workman had worked from 01.12.1987 to 31.07.1988 which comes to 243 days. This finding was recorded on the basis of muster rolls filed by the workman. Ultimately reinstatement with full back wages was directed. Through interim order passed in this writ petition dated 18.09.2005 operation of the impugned award was directed to be kept in abeyance until next date of listing provided that the Petitioner reinstated the Respondent No. 2.;