ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Agra dated 22 4 1994 and the order dated 9 1 1996, passed in Adjudication Case No. 44 of 1992, Annexures 2 and 4 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that State Government vide its order dated 31 12 1991 has referred the following dispute under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication before the respondent Labour Court, which reads as follows : Whether the termination of the services of Sri Mathura Prasad, son of Mewa Ram, Cattle Guard w.e.f. 25 7 1989 by the employer was valid and legal? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman was entitled for, etc.? It is submitted that the employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their written statements and adduced their evidence and argued the matter before the Labour Court. The workman has stated in his written statement filed before the Labour Court that he was appointed as Cattle Guard in the establishment of the petitioner employer in October, 1982. He further stated that he has completed six years and seven months, his work was satisfactory and he was being paid Rs. 15 only, whereas other workmen who were appointed and were working the same work as was being performed by the workman concerned, were getting more than the concerned workman. It has been further stated that when the dispute came to the knowledge of the then Forest Guard, he pressurised to withdraw the same, but when workman refused to do so, on 25 7 1989 he was informed that his services were terminated by oral order by Range Forest Officer, Jalesar, Etah with immediate effect. He was given oral termination order saying that for such workman, there is no need to give termination order in writing and also no notice was issued to him before one month from the date of termination of his service and he has also not given one month's salary in lieu thereof. He further stated that before terminating his services, neither the provisions of Sections 6 N, 6 P and 6 Q have been complied with, nor any retrenchment compensation has been given to him and also no notice or information has been issued to the State Government, in this regard. The junior employees, who were appointed after the workman, have been retained and they are still working, whereas the services of the workman concerned were terminated and it was, therefore, prayed that the termination of the services of the workman may be declared void and illegal and a direction be issued to the employer to treat the workman in continuous service as regular employee.
(3.) AFTER the pleadings and evidences have been over by both the parties, the Labour Court has recorded findings that inspite of notices being serviced upon the employer, none appeared on behalf of the employer and also on the next date i.e. on 4 4 1994 neither anybody had appeared before the Labour Court, nor any stay application has been filed on their behalf, therefore, the arguments have been heard and award was given ex parte. Thereafter, an application dated 15 11 1994 has been filed on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court to set aside the ex parte award dated 22 7 1994. The Labour Court after hearing the arguments on the basis of the materials available on record, recorded a finding that the application on behalf of the employer has been filed after 30 days of the publication of the said award, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and has rejected the said application vide its order dated 9 1 1996.;