Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition was heard and dismissed by me on 29,7.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the reference made by the State Government under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 4.4.1992 for adjudication which has been registered as Adjudication Case No. 140 of 1992.
(3.) The workman and the employer both exchanged written statement and evidence before the labour court. The labour court, after considering the material evidence on record, has recorded a finding with regard to the case set up by the workman that he has worked more than 240 days in the previous calendar year and that his services have been terminated after he has worked for about seven years continuously without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was never given any notice, nor any retrenchment compensation. The finding of the labour court, though tried to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in vain. The workman concerned has demonstrated before the labour court and it has been accepted by the labour court that in fact the nature of the Job of the workman concerned was permanent and that is why after terminating the services of the workman, one Ramesh has been appointed by the employer after the workman has served continuously for more than seven years.;