D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Bareilly, dated 9th January, 1981. Brief facts, giving rise to the controversy involved in the petition, are as follows : By means of an order dated 19th September, 1975, the petitioner dispensed with the services of its workman Shri Shiv Poojan Vishwakarma, who figures as respondent no. 3 in the instant petition. THIS led to reference to the Labour Court, Bareilly. The Labour Court was called upon to adjudicate upon the question as to whether the dispensation of the services of the respondent no. 3 was bad. The case set up by the respondent no. 3 before the Labour Court was that the dispensation of his services by the petitioner amounted to retrenchment and the retrenchment was effected without paying him the retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner was that it was not a case of retrenchment. According to the petitioner it was a case of termination simpliciter and that being so it was not incumbent to comply with the requirement of paying retrenchment compensation to the respondent no. 3.
(2.) THE Labour Court, after thoroughly investigating the respective case of the parties, concluded that the dispensation of services of the respondent no. 3 amounted to retrenchment and it was not a case of termination simpliciter. THE labour court also found that in view of the fact that the respondent no. 3 was not paid retrenchment compensation the dispensation of his services was contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. On these findings the labour court held that the order dated 19th September, 1975 passed by the petitioner dispensing with the services of the respondent no. 3 was bad and the respondent no. 3 was entitled to be reinstated with full salary and all incidential benefits including continuity of service. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 was not paid any compensation. What is in dispute is as to whether the order dated 19th September, 1975 was the order of termination simpliciter or amounted to an order of retrenchment. If this order amounted to retrenchment, it will, surely, be hit by the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in as much as, admittedly, no compensation was paid to the respondent no. 3. It is well settled that any and every termination of services of a workman will amount to retrenchment unless the same is covered by any of the exceptions envisaged under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Section 2 (s) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 see Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 S C 1253, It has not been disputed before me that impugned termination does not fall in any of the exceptions stipulated by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Section 2 (s) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) THE termination of the services being retrenchment and also being not in conformity with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court was fully justified in concluding that the order dated 19th September, 1975 was illegal and the respondent no. 3 was entitled to be reinstated with all the benefits attached to his employment. THE impugned award is perfect and does not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For what has been said above, the petition fails and is here by dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed;