D.S.Sinha - (1.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Ganganath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Moti Lal Nehru Park, Allahabad, the petitioner seeks to assail the validity of the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 23rd/26th April, 1982, rendered in Adjudication Case No. 154 of 1989 and a copy whereof is to be found as Annexure-10 to the petition.
(2.) MADAN Lal, the respondent no. 1, worked with the petitioner as a part time sweeper during the period between 1st February, 1970 and 31st October, 1975. Thereafter, he worked as a full-time sweeper on daily wages during the period between 1st November, 1975 and 36th May, 1977. With effect from 30th May, 1977 he started functioning as a wholetime employee of the petitioner till his services were terminated by means of the order dated 4th July, 1979. This led to a reference by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent no. 3, to the Labour Court, Allahabad, the respondent no. 2, under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. The contention on behalf of the respondent no. 1 was that neither any notice nor pay in lieu of the notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him. Thus the provisions of section 6-N of the Act were violated. The petitioner did not dispute the non-compliance of the provisions of section 6-N of the Act. However, it tried to resist the case of the petitioner by asserting that it was not an industry amenable to the provisions of the Act, and that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The Labour Court rejected the submissions of the petitioner. After rejecting the submissions with regard to amenability to the provisions of the Act and lack of Jurisdiction, the Labour Court considered the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent no. 1 was bad as it was not brought about after complying the mandatory requirements of provisions of section 6-N of the Act. The Labour Court, therefore, rendered the impugned award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no. 1 and grant continuity of service alongwith other benefits.
(3.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Dwivdl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent no. 1, at length and in detail. Sri Dwivdi, learned counsel for the petitioner, tenders the following two submissions for consideration of this Court ; (a) that the impugned award is totally without jurisdiction in as much as the dispute was not an industrial dispute as envisaged by the Act ; and (b) that, in any case, the finding of the Labour Court that there has been violation of section 6-N of the Act is wholly erroneous. ;