- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager pipeline fitter in Jal Sansthan Hamirpur Division, Jhansi on 26-9-1991 against the sanctioned post. It is alleged by him that the sanction for appointment of a Pipe Line Fitter in Kurara, Jal Sansthan, Hamirpur Jhansi was granted by the General Manager, Jal Sansthan Jhansi, Division, Jhansi by his order dated 6-5-1991. It is submitted that the work of the petitioner as a Pipe Line Fitter was satisfactory and it was appreciated by his Senior Officers. He states that he was appointed as a trained fitter and he was getting the wages of trained fitter. He worked from 26-9-1991 to 31-12-1992 efficiently. It is alleged that all of a sudden the petitioner received information from his office on 4-1-1993 that his services were terminated from the Post of Pipe Line Fitter. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the respondents are not taking work from him since January, 1993 and no one has been appointed in his place till date. THE Post of Pipe Line Fitter is still lying vacant in Jal Sansthan Kurara District Hamirpur Division, Jhansi. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing to him and is against the principle of natural justice. It is alleged that the termination of the service of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment within the definition of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the conditions mentioned therein and as such, the termination of his service is bad in the eye of law, illegal, incorrect and unjustified. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is I. T. I. in electrical trade and not in the fitter trade. It is further alleged that since the petitioner was engaged as muster roll employee and has worked on daily wage basis for 30 days sanction on each time and has worked only for a period of one year and three months i. e. from 27-9-91 to 31-12-92. It is for the workman to prove that he has completed 240 days of actual service to become entitled for getting the benefits under Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules 1957 framed thereunder. It is submitted that the burden of proof is on the workman to establish by oral and documentary evidence that he was appointed against a permanent vacant post in accordance with law. The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced before the Labour Court. The question as to whether the termination is legal and valid, is within realm of First Schedule of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. This Court will not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding disputed questions of facts by taking evidence for which the Labour Court is best equipped. In these circumstances, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court.
(3.) IF the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today the said authority will call the parties and try to amicably settle the dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be, for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Labour Court in the manner prescribed and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Rules, 1957 for filing written statement, rejoinders documents and evidence etc. IF necessary, the proceedings may be held on day-to-day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules. The case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not later from the date of receipt of reference. For these reasons the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petition dismissed. .;