Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Since these two writ petitions filed by the petitioner-State of U. P., through Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Megh Chhappar, Saharanpur against the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 29.9.1997 and 23.10.1997, passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 107 of 1997 and 106 of 1997, respectively, raise common questions, facts and law, therefore, they are heard and decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The following disputes have been referred to by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour court for adjudication : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..
(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) A bare perusal of the reference aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the labour court was directed to answer the reference as to whether termination, of services of the workmen concerned, in each writ petition, were valid, legal or not? After exchange of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the workmen were appointed as part time tube well operators and the case set up by the workmen concerned was that they have worked for more than 240 days and their services have been terminated without complying with the provision of Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as no domestic enquiry was held and neither and notice, nor any retrenchment compensation has been given in lieu thereof to the workmen, which is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.;