- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the award of the Labour Court dated 12.2.1998, whereby the Labour Court has held the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 9.2.1993 as bad in law and has further directed that the respondent No. 2 to be reinstated in service and be paid three-fourths (¾) wages as arrears of wages.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 174 of 1993 challenging the order terminating his services w.e.f. 24.2.1993. The said Civil Suit is stated to be pending. However, in the mean time the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 284 of 1994 and the question referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the order dated 9.2.1993 terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 were valid in law and if not what reliefs the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to. The case of the respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was that he was engaged as daily-wager in the petitioner-Cooperative Society in the year 1986 and was paid Rs.36 per day as daily wages. His services were also regularized by an oral order. His case further is that when he made a demand of payment for minimum wages, the petitioner-Employer denied the same and without any notice or calling for any explanation from him passed the order dated 9.2.1993 by which his services were terminated. Subsequently, an agreement was arrived at between the petitioner- Employer and the respondent No. 2 on 22.2.1993, which however, was not honoured by the petitioners. The case of the respondent No. 2 further is that after dispensing with his services, other persons were engaged and thus, the respondent No. 2 has not only lost his job but also the wages he was drawing. The case was contested before the Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court vide award dated 12.2.1998 held the order dated 9.3.1993, terminating the services of the petitioner to be illegal and further directed that the respondent No. 2 be reinstated in service with back-wages to the extent of three-fourths (¾) of his wages.
(3.) I have heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The order is being dictated in open Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Contractor and was never employed by the petitioner-Cooperative Society and his salary was also paid by the Contractor one Sri Ram Chandra Shukla.;