- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that instead of deciding the stay vacation application, the writ petition itself may be heard and decided on merits.
(2.) The petitioners aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-IV, Kanpur dated 17th January, 1998 passed in Adjudication Case No. 60 of 1996, (Annexure '3' to the writ petition), have approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court:
(3.) The labour court issued notice to the parties, namely, workman and the employer. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced the evidence. The labour court has categorically recorded a finding after considering the evidence on record that from the perusal of Ext. 25 to Ext. 45, it is apparent that the workman concerned has worked from the year 1991 to 12th October, 1993 when his services were terminated. Thus, he has worked for more than 240 days in the proceeding calendar year. The labour court has also recorded a finding that it will not make any difference whether the nature of the appointment of the workman concerned was temporary in nature and further there was direction from the State of terminate the services of the temporary workman, like the respondent no. 2. Thus, the labour court directed after holding that the termination of the services of the workman concerned with effect from 13th October, 1993 is illegal and directed the reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month.;