M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) The Award dated May 24, 1983 in Adjudication case No. 45 of 1982, passed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 3 is prayed to be quashed by the petitioner. A direction is sought against the respondent No. 1 not to implement the said Award.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 3 was employed by the petitioner on contract basis after he had been superannuated in his personal employment. He was given the job of Typist/Stenographer. The respondent No. 3 was initially appointed for a period of three months on probation on August 8, 1979. Thereafter he was given employment on March 27, 1980 after being confirmed. On March 5, 1981 he was asked by a notice that his employment could not be continued after April 14, 1981. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute that his services had been terminated illegally. He sought conciliation proceedings. The State Government referred the matter for adjudication of the dispute raised by the respondent No. 3 under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The order of: reference was made on September 25, 1982. The matter accordingly was referred to the Labour Court IV, Kanpur for adjudication.
(3.) The petitioner as also the respondent No. 3 filed their written statements before the Labour Court. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent No. 3 had neither been dismissed nor removed nor retrenched within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was further averred by the petitioner before the Labour Court that the question of termination of services of the respondent No. 3 did not arise, as he had already crossed the age of superannuation, as prescribed under the Gratuity Act, 1972. His services could be terminated by giving him one month's notice. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that the respondent No. 3 for reasons of his health could not discharge his work efficiently and he would remain absent periodically. Thus his services were not required by the petitioner. The Labour Court after consideration of the matter is said to have held that the termination of services of the respondent No. 3 was illegal and the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and granted him certain benefits.;