Anjani Kumar - (1.) -This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a reference made under Section 4 (k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to Labour Court U. P., Agra, in Adjudication Case No. 472 of 1993.
(2.) ON a reference being made, the labour court issued notices to the concerned parties. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and also adduced their evidences. The labour court vide its award dated 12.9.1997 has held the termination of the workman concerned without compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, is illegal. Inasmuch as, the workman has completed 240 days working in the previous calender year. The labour court, therefore, gave the award that the termination is illegal and void. The workman is entitled for reinstatement and awarded Rs. 1,000 as compensation instead of back wages. It is this award, which is challenged by the employer by means of this writ petition. The main contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workman has not completed 240 days continuous working in the previous calendar year and, therefore, the view taken by the labour court that the employer was under legal obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The labour court after considering the evidence on record, have recorded the findings. Inasmuch as, since it is admitted by the employer that the workman concerned has completed 239 days with effect from 1.10.1991 to 31.5.1992 on the previous calendar year and that the services have been terminated admittedly on 1.6.1992. The labour court has recorded finding that the version of the workman is acceptable as the same is supported by the evidence on record that workman had worked upto 5.6.1992 and thus he completed 244 days before the termination of his service with effect from 6.6.1992. In this view of the matter, the labour court has refused to accept the version of the employer that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the work with effect from 1.6.1992. Had this been so, the workman would not have raised the dispute. The labour court, therefore, has held that the workman has completed 240 days continuous working in the previous calendar year and the termination without compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE labour court, therefore, has rightly set aside the termination, and in my opinion, has rightly held that instead of to be awarded back wages, the workman should be entitled of compensation of Rs. 1,000 and that continuity of service and full salary will be paid from the date of the award. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.;