Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioners-employers-U. P. State Electricity Board, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal (I). U. P., at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') dated 9th August, 1985, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the contesting respondent-workman, namely? Mohd. Jameel was employed with the employers, as would be clear from the narration of fact and the written statement filed by the parties and referred to by the Tribunal in the award, which reveals that "the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel was employed as Pump Operator-cum-Electrician with the employers w.e.f. 1st June, 1977. The services of the workman concerned were wrongfully terminated by the employers on 1st February, 1979. The workman through the respective union raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad and was registered by the Tribunal as Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980. The Tribunal vide its award dated 17th August, 1981, published on 3rd October, 1981, held that the termination of the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel from service by the employers was illegal. The Tribunal directed for re-instatement with continuity of service and back wages for the workman. The workman concerned thereafter moved an application that under Section 6E of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the second issue referred to has not been decided. For disposal of the case, it would be convenient to peruse the reference that has been made by the State Government under Section 4K of the Act, which runs as under : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..
(3.) As already stated, when the services of the workman concerned were terminated w.e.f. 1st February, 1979, a dispute was raised which has been answered in favour of the workman for re-instatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Tribunal directed for reinstatement vide its award dated 17th August, 1981. Pursuant to the aforesaid award, the employers reinstated the workman and started paying Rs. 10 per day, as according to the employers the workman was employed on daily wage basis. In this circumstance, the second issue, which was referred to by the State Government for adjudication, the Tribunal has answered both the issues in favour of the workman by the award impugned in the present petition holding that the termination of the services of the concerned workman w.e.f. 1st February, 1979, were illegal, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, which is para materia of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have not been complied with. The Tribunal has also directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages. With regard to the second issue, the Tribunal have directed that the workman is in continuous service since 1977 and has put in more than eight years till 19th June, 1984. The Tribunal has recorded finding that indeed it is too long a period to keep a workman employed on casual/daily wage basis, which is the connotation of muster-roll employees and, therefore, the Tribunal has directed the employers to consider seriously the possibility of the absorbing the workman concerned on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employers have raised the argument that a perusal of the order of termination dated 19th June, 1984, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, clearly demonstrates that the order purports to comply with all requirements of Section 6N/Section 25F of the Act, as according to the petitioner's counsel, it is not necessary that the amount as contemplated under Section 6N/25F of the Act must be paid at the time of the retrenchment, but if the order contemplates the offer to collect the amount contemplated under Section 25F of the Act it is the substantial compliance of the said provision and the Tribunal has erred in holding otherwise. A perusal of the termination order dated 19th June, 1984, clearly demonstrates that it purports to terminate the services of the workman and informs the workman concerned that he may collect the retrenchment compensation and wages for one month's notice. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, amounts to substantial compliance and nothing further is required to be complied with, particularly when there is a report of the peon that when the notice was offered to the workman concerned, he refused to accept the same and told the peon that the same may be sent to his home address, which was admittedly sent after two days, i.e., 21st June, 1984 ; whereas, as per notice Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the services of the workman stand terminated w.e.f. 19th June, 1984. Curiously and particularly in the teeth of the denial by the workman concerned that the order of termination was never offered to him and that he never denied to receive the same. The workman also denied that he received the registered letter, which was sent to his home address after three days and he came to know with regard to the termination of his services only when he came to office for collecting the wages at the end of the month. The employers have not produced the person, who was scribe of the report, whereby report has been submitted that with regard to the service of the order of termination dated 19th June, 1984 to the effect that the workman has refused to accept the same. The Tribunal has further dealt with the working and the calculation etc. of the retrenchment compensation on the account slip and have arrived at the conclusion that the same has admittedly been done after the termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 19th June, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed, nor challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this account. He thereafter insisted upon that since substantial compliance have been done with regard to Section 6N/25F of the Act, the view taken by the Tribunal to the contrary, i.e., Section 6N/25F have not been complied with, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision in Management of Ramesh Hydromachs v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and Anr., 1985 LAB IC 1806. The another decision relied upon by petitioners' counsel is In B.N. Elias and Co. Private Ltd. v. Fifth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 1965 Cal 166, in support of this contention.;