- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me on 16-8-2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-employer against the award dated 20th November, 1996 passed by the labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 90 of 1988 whereby the retrenchment of the workman concerned with effect from 17th June, 1882 has been held to be legal. The labour Court has further directed that considering the facts that the workman concerned is fairly senior hence as and when any next appointment is made by the employer, the workman concerned shall be given preference as contemplated under Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is this award which has been challenged by the employer by means of this writ petition. In my opinion, the employer do not have any cause of action to challenge the present award in as much as the labour Court having found that the retrenchment of the workman concerned with effect from 17th June, 1882 is valid. So far as direction issued by the labour Court regarding consideration and giving opportunity of employment to the workman concerned who is a retrenched employee according to his seniority among retrenched employee as and when any regular vacancy or any other vacancy is available is concerned the same is enshrined in Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is reproduced below: "6-Q. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-Whereby any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, and the retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. "
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is not open to the employer to challenge this award. In this view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;