- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Clerk vide order dated 5-5-89. On 1-7-91 he was informed that his services were not required as there is no fund for the work in the office and he has also not worked since then. THE petitioner contends that he has completed 240 days of service and his services cannot be terminated orally. He further contends that his engagement was terminated which is against the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is alleged that respondent Rural Engineering Services in the State comes within the meaning of word "industry" as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and hence the services of the petitioner cannot be retrenched without following procedure as laid down under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted by the Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was never appointed as Clerk but he was appointed as Daily Wager as work charge employee and had himself not reported for duty w. e. f. 1-7-91 i. e. in short he had abandoned his job. It is further submitted that there is a ban imposed on permanent appointment and the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised. Be that as it may, the dispute cannot be resolved in writ petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as question of fact whether the petitioner had abandoned the services on his own or his services were terminated by the employer can only be resolved by oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The question of regularization is within the realm of the Labour Court under the First Schedule of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. This Court cannot take such an exercise in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has himself complained of violation of provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Act is a complete Code and complete machinery provided for settlement and adjudication of Industrial Disputes therein. It would, therefore, be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious available to him before the Labour Court as has been held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others, 1991 UPLBeC 898 and Scooters of India and others v. Vijay E. V. Elder, 1998 SCC (L and S) 1611, wherein the Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the remedy before the Labour Court is more efficacious.
(3.) IN this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed, as alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. It is, however, directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will try to amicably settle the dispute under the provisions of the U. P. INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947. IN case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by authority concerned to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Labour Court according to the procedure and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. INdustrial Rules, 1957 for filing written statements, rejoinder documents etc. If necessary the proceedings may be held on day to day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules and the case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not beyond from the date or receipt of reference. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;