M.Katju - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the labour Court dated 29-9-1987. I have heard Shrl V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shyam Narain, learned counsel the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE respondent no. 1 was appointed as work charge daily rated employee in the service of the petitioner and he worked only for about four months from 22-12-1979 to 15-3-79. It is stated in paragraph 1 of the petition that he did not report for work after 15-3-1979 although he was asked to report for work vide letter dated 30-3-79. THE respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court which has passed the award in favour of the workman. Aggrieved the present petition has been filed. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 worked for only about four months which is far less than 240 days, and hence he cannot get the benefit of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court has passed the award on the basis that the respondent No. 1 went to report for duty but he was not allowed to work. Even if this is so, it is evident that unless an employee has completed 240 days of service he does not get any benefit under section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act-Admittedly respondent No. 1 was only a temporary employee and he has no right to hold the post. However in the special circumstances of the case, taking into account the fact that an interim order was passed in this case on 17-3-1988 to the effect that the respondent No. 1 will be reinstated, in my opinion since the respondent No 1 has been working now for several years in pursuance of the interim order of this court, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to throw him out of employment. However, I modify the impugned award and direct that although the respondent No. 1 has been reinstated, be will not get any back wages between the date of his termination and the date on which he was reinstated in pursuance of the order of this Court. After his reinstatement he well get all the benefit which other employee gets i.e. increment etc. With these observations the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;