S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved against the order dated May 9, 1980, by means of which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Lucknow made an award by giving a finding to the effect that the employers were not competent to terminate the service of Ori Lal from 7th July, 1975 and they acted illegally in doing so. They could have, at the best, sent Ori Lal bick to P.W.D. if he was not prepared to take up fresh appointment with them and P.W.D. alone was competent to take such action against this workman Ori Lal as was open to them in accordance with law in regard to the termination of his services. The Labour Court further directed that the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all the benefits of continuity in services.
(2.) The U.P. State Bridge Corporation, Lucknow preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the reference under Section 4-K of the Act having been made by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 treating that the petitioner was not the employer of respondent No. 1 and it was not open for respondent No. 2 to hold that the petitioner was not the employer of respondent No. 1 and accordingly had no right to terminate the services of respondent No. 1. It was further argued that by holding that the respondent No. 1 was an employee of P.W.D. on deputation with the U.P. State Bridge Corporation, the award passed by the Labour Court was in excess of the reference and beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. It was further averred that as the matter was earlier adjudicated upon in an earlier adjudication case, namely Case No. 1292 of 1975 on 7-9-1976 upon a reference made earlier, under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, no second reference under Section 4-K could be properly made. It was also pointed out that the respondent No. 1 did not raise the dispute in view of the agreement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer referred to in Paragraph 13 of the written statement.
(3.) The factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has referred the industrial dispute raised by opposite party No. I under Section 4-K of Industrial Dispute Act, The parties have filed their written statements and two preliminary issues were framed 1. Whether the dispute here is not an industrial dispute as alleged by the employer ? If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the reference is bad in law as alleged by the employers ?;