R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.4.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi in adjudication Case No. 122 of 1990. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of case are that the respondent No. 2 Sri Kailash Pandey was engaged on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1.6.1984 to 31.10.1987 in the department of Irrigation Flood Division I, State Government of U. P. He had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. On the claim of the respondent for regularisation, the respondent was removed from service without giving any notice ignoring the Provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Contrary to it, it as contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondent workman did not present himself from 1.11.1987 for work, as such, neither his service was terminated nor he was retrenched. In support of the contention of the respondent-workman had filed a document as evidence Exhibit-1 in the form of application dated 18.4.1988 indicating that he has already been removed like other workman in the month of October 1987. He met the Assistant Engineer, who had given him assurance to give re-employment after giving deployment to others. Exhibit-2 dated 12.9.1987 (in the form of the application), Exhibit-3 dated 22.9.1989 (in the form of the application), Exhibit-4 dated 19.10.1989, Exhibit-5 dated 1.2.1990, Exhibit-6 dated 13.2.1990 have been filed in that context.
(3.) The respondent workman was also examined and during the cross-examination, nothing was found in contravention or derogation of his interest. Only one witness Sri Paras Nath Verma was produced by the employer-petitioner. Since the above witness had joined on 2.7.1993, therefore, he could not be treated to be witness of oral termination. There no material was produced, which may indicate that the respondent-workman had left the work on his own.;