ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) State Government by its order dated March 31, 1994 referred the following dispute to Labour Court, Rampur: Vernacular matter omitted.
(2.) Both the employer and workman concerned exchanged their pleadings. In its pleading, the employer has taken a case that since the workman concerned has not completed 240 days in previous calendar years, therefore while terminating his services it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which admittedly was not complied with. The Labour Court considered the aforesaid case and the evidence on behalf of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and since it is admitted that the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act has not been complied with, ordered for reinstatement of the workmen concerned with continuity of his service and full back wages. Sri B. S. Chauhan on behalf of the petitioner employer has argued that the ground has been taken in the writ petition that the workman concerned was appointed for specified period, therefore, his termination cannot be covered by the definition of retrenchment and therefore it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The grounds argued by Sri Chauhan as stated, has not been taken before the Labour Court. On being pointed put by the Court, Sri Chauhan stated that this point, being the question of law, can be raised at any stage.
(3.) The argument of Sri Chauhan is that since this ground is pure question of law and not dependent on statement of fact therefore, it can be raised and this Court always permitted the petitioner to raise. Needless to say that this argument of Sri Chauhan is misconceived. Whether the concerned workman is covered by the definition of workman or not is based on pleading which is dependent on fact and evidence and unless the pleading is proved before the Labour Court, the same cannot be argued before this Court. Sri Chauhan has conceded that no such plea was raised before the Labour Court nor any evidence was adduced, therefore, in view of what has been stated above, Sri Chauhan cannot be permitted to raise this question and the finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard has to be accepted. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;