ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Labour Court IV, Kanpur dated 2/07/1996, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 11/02/1992 has referred the following dispute before the Labour Court, the respondent No. 1. Vernacular matter omitted.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties have exchanged their pleading, adduced their evidence and the matter was argued before the Labour Court. Learned 5 Standing Counsel has raised first ground that the Labour Court has not dealt with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the employer that workman concerned was not employed in the industry. The aforesaid 10 contention of learned Standing Counsel is not correct. The Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the preliminary objection was not pressed and neither any documents nor any other evidence has been adduced and no arguments were advanced to press this ground. In this view of the matter, the argument of learned Standing Counsel is not correct and cannot be believed and it is liable to be rejected. The second ground that has been argued by learned Standing Counsel is that since the workman was not trained, therefore he could not have been appointed as Seench pal, the post, on which the workman was directed to be reinstated and regularised. This argument is also not supported by any evidence on the record. On the contrary, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that in letter dated 26/10/1989, the executive engineer has sought for permission of the extension of the concerned workman's appointment beyond December, 1989, in which it has been stated that workman has been working for past one year. He belongs to Scheduled Caste and he has training of conducting the revenue work. On the aforesaid recommendation of the executive engineer, the superintending engineer vide its order dated 18/11/1988 has granted permission for the continuance of the workman concerned. In this view of the matter, this argument, is fallacious. With regard to the rest of the findings that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months, the same is not challenged. It is also admitted that while terminating the services of the workman, the proceedings of Section 6-Nofthe U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with. I find no irregularities or illegalities in the award impugned, therefore no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the findings recorded by the Labour Court. This writ petition therefore has no force and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will however, be no order as to costs.;