Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Following reference was made to the labour court, Varanasi, which has been answered by the labour court by its award dated 16th May, 1997 in Adjudication Case No. 50 of 1992. ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..
(2.) The employer M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills, Shahganj, Jaunpur, was taken over by the State Government under the statutory provisions and is being run by the petitioner. The Corporation has taken over sugar mill on 24th April, 1989 and under the terms of acquisition, all workmen who were employed on the relevant date, i.e., the date of acquisition shall be deemed to be and would become employee of the Corporation on the same terms and conditions on which they were working with the Corporation. The employer has set up the case that the workman concerned Sri Amar Nath Agarwal was not given any letter for joining after the date of acquisition of the factory by the Corporation (i.e. with effect from 24th April, 1989). The workman submitted that he was ailing till 10th September, 1989. Thereafter getting fitness certificate, he reported for duty on 14th September, 1989 but the employer deliberately have not given him job. It is not disputed that before acquisition, the workman was regular employee of Ratna Sugar Mills which has been taken over by the Corporation and the employer has refused to permit the workman to join service and has set up case before the labour court that the workman voluntarily did not join the service. The employer has also tried to raise issue that in fact, the workman was not on the roll of Ratna Sugar Mills and, therefore, he cannot claim to be an employee of the Corporation. Needless to say that these contradictory statements itself demonstrate the weakness of the stand taken by the employer when they have taken up the case that the employee deliberately did not join. It is presumed that the workman concerned who was an employee of M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills would become the employee of Corporation as a consequence of acquisition of the mills by the Corporation. The labour court after exchange of the pleadings and after affording opportunity to the employer and workman has arrived at the conclusion that in fact, the employee was on the roll of Ratna Sugar Mills and, therefore, he was deemed to be an employee of the Corporation from the date of acquisition of the mills by the Corporation because the case set up by the employee is not that the employer has retrenched his services. Therefore, the labour court awarded that making deprived of workman from services by the employer with effect from 14th September, 1989, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The labour court, therefore, issued direction to the employer to take back the workman in service and further directed that the workman shall be treated to be on duty with effect from 14.9.1989. The labour court has also directed that after acquisition of the mill by Corporation upto 13.9.1989, the workman will be treated to be on leave, as are admissible to him. It is this award which is challenged by the employer.
(3.) In view of the findings recorded by the labour court which though tried to be assailed but could not be assailed and no manifest error of law could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;