M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) . Out of the.se six writ petitions, three petitions are filed by Ram Kumar Sharma (Writ Petition No. 5079 of 1988), Anil Kumar Misra (Writ Petition No. 8174 of 1988) and Anil Kumar Shori (Writ Petition No. 5081 of 1988). The remaining three writ petitions ate filed by the respondents against the award which is partly impugned in the other three writ petitions These writ petitions are filed by the General Manager of the Bank in question. The corresponding counter writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Ram Kumar Sharma is writ petition No. 6355 of 1988, the corresponding counter writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Anil Kumar Misra is writ petition No. 6258 of 1988 and the corresponding writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Anil Kumar Shori is writ Petition No. 6359 of 1988. In all the six writ petitions the same award is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioners are only partly aggrieved against the said award whereas the respondents are aggrieved against the entire award. It is, therefore, advantageous to decide all these six writ petitions together by one judgment.
(2.) It seems that the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 7.6.1983 and the State Government referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court vide its order dated 16.5.1984, which passed an award on 24.11.1987.
(3.) In writ petition No. 5081 of 1988 it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc clerk-cum cashier but periodically his services were terminated and fresh appointment letters were issued to him. In three years about 13 appointment letters were given to him. The petitioner was held to have been working as a clerk-cum-cashier and was not doing work purely of temporary nature, although he was paid only one half of the wages of the regular clerk but he was doing the work of a regular clerk. Regular appointments are to be made after approval/selection by the Co-operative Service Board, Luck now The petitioner is said to have not been approved / selected by the said Board. However, he is said to have worked, for 240 working days before his termination but has not been paid any retrenchment compensation as required under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act The petitioner's termination was said to be illegal; The Labour Court did not direct Ms reinstatement because the petitioner was not approved/selected by the Co-operative Board. The petitioner was, therefore, declared to be continuing in service till the employers paid him retrenchment compensation with effect from 7.8 1983 to the date of payment plus Rs. 50 by way of cost. The employers were directed to pay him full pay and other allowances which he would have received, if he was not retrenched, for the above period. The petitioner challenges the omission of the Labour Court to grant the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner after termination of his service was declared invalid and illegal. It is contended that the relief of reinstatement should not have been refused by the Labour Court and the said relief has deprived the petitioner an opportunity of becoming permanent in his employment on securing the approval/selection by the Service Board in due course of time. The petitioner wants a relief that the award be quashed to the extent it has refused to grant the appropriate relief of reinstatement in service to the petitioner and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents No. 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner as clerk-cum-cashier.;