- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THESE writ petitions have been directed against an award of the Industrial Tribunal (4) U. P. Agra dated 27-5-1988 passed in Adjudication Case No. 229 of 1985 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition ). Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21418 of 1988 has been filed by the workman challenging the award to the extent of not grating relief of back wages from the date of termination of his service. The brief facts of the case are that the services of the petitioner/workman were terminated by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 1-9-1975 without complying the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman. The State Government on 23-9-1985 referred the following issue to the Labour Court in exercise of powers under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: "whether the termination of services of Satish Chandra Yadav son of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, booking Clerk by the employer with effect from 1-9-1975 was proper and/or legal? If not, to what relief and with what other details is the concerned workman entitled?" 5. The Tribunal made an award holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated without following the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service. The award was enforced by publication on the Notice Board on 16-7-1988. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to creation of Corporation with effect from 1-6-1972 the transport services I the State of U. P. were being provided by the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, which was a department of State Government and all the employees working therein were Government servants. He submits that Respondent No. 3 Satish Chandra Yadav was initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk/booking Clerk on temporary basis in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways with effect from 10-9-1969. He his temporary services were terminated by means of simple order of discharge dated 1-9-1975 due to general unsuitability and unsatisfactory work. The appeal against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 7-2- 1976. 7. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 filed a highly belated application before the Regional Conciliation Officer raising a dispute regarding his termination in the year 1985, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 229 of 1985. 8. By the impugned award the labour Court had set aside the order of termination on the ground that no enquiry was conducted against the employee concerned and no opportunity was afforded to him to explain the lapses as alleged. It was held by the Tribunal that there was a violation of mandatory provisions of retrenchment contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while directing the reinstatement with continuity of service, the labour Court back wages only with effect from the date of reference. The corporation has filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid award. A connected writ petition has also been filed by the workman challenging the part of the award relating to back wages from the date of termination. 9. The employers have challenged the award on the following grounds:- (1) The employee concerned was appointed in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways and was on deputation in the Corporation, hence there was no Privity of contract between the employee and the Corporation and as such the reference itself was bad. Reliance has been placed by them in Jagdish Prasad Gupta and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1980 (6) ALR 81. (2) The employee was a temporary Government servant and his services were terminated on 1-9-1975 by an order of discharge simplicitor without casting any stigma. Sri Samir Sharma submits that even assuming without admitting that the employee concerned was an employee of Corporation, he was temporary hand and his services were terminated according to the Temporary Government Servant Rules. His services had been dispensed with without casting any stigma. Reference has been made to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, on the basis of which it is argued that this a case of loss of confidence, which amply proves the reasons for proving confidence, but the labour Court erred in not considering the matter as several lapses were committed by the employee in the past and he was warned on several occasions. In Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, 1999 (1) LBESR 896 (SC) : 1999 (81) FLR 475, documents were filed to Exhibit E-1 to Exhibit E-9 in support of these facts. (3) The labour Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the termination order was passed in violation of Section 6-E of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and Section 25-F of the Central Industrial Disputes Act without giving any basis and as such the award is cryptic and without application of mind and was liable to be rejected. This matter had became stale as he had raised the dispute after more than nine years. Reliance has been placed in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhvankutty and others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 455. 10. Counsel for the respondents submits that the ground raised in the writ petion that the petitoner/workman was a Government servant and the labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, has been raised by the petitioner/workman for the first time before this Court, hence it cannot be permitted to raise it. He further submits that once the reference has been made by the State Government, has to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and it had no jurisdiction to hold that the reference is bad in law. He also submits that the workman was in the employment since 10-9-1969 to 1-9-1975 with artificial breaks. It is further submits that in the written statement given on behalf of the employers it has been admitted that the workman was temporary appointed under the order dated 16-3-1974 with effect from 1-3-1974, when his services were terminated by the Regional Manager on 1-9-1975, which clearly shows that respondent workman had completed 240 days before his termination. The order Exhibit- E-2 does not show any reason or any ground that the services of the workman were not needed. It is clear that there was no charge of mis-conduct against the petitioner. The fact that there were regular vacancies and juniors to him were allowed to continue. This fact has not been denied by the employers before the labour Court. 11. Having given my anxious thought, it is clearly established from the record that the workman had worked for more than 240 days, hence his termination amounted to violation of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Even if a termination employee, who completes 240 days service in a year, becomes entitled to retrenchment compensation and notice etc. It is true that the services of temporary Government servants can be terminated at any time, but their termination should be according to the mandatory provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as he is a workman as defined in Section 5 (2) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 12. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that due to certain misconducts, which are borne out from Exhibit E-1 to Exhibit E-9, there was a loss of confidence, suffice to say that this pleading as it has not been shown that the workman was holding the post of confidence. Loss of confidence due to misconduct and the order of discharge simplicitor does not stand to scrutiny. From the averments and the pleadings, it is admitted that the services of the workman were discharged without holding any domestic enquiry. Instead of holding any domestic enquiry, the order of discharge simplicitor was passed. It amounts to termination for misconduct. If the services of the workman are terminated without complying the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, it is illegal. 13. So far as the delay in raising an industrial dispute is concerned, suffice it to say that the labour Court has taken care and has denied the back wages to the worker from the date of termination to the date of reference. Back wages for the period of delay have not been awareded by the labour Court. It rightly molded the relief, which cannot be faulted with. 14. For he reasons stated above, it is not a fit case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 to interfere with the findings of fact. Writ Petition No. 21497 of 1988 filed by the employers falls and is dismissed. The interim order dated 15-11- 1988 is vacated. In so far as Writ Petition No. 21418 of 1988 filed by the workman is concerned, it is admitted between the parties that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman after lapse of nine years, as stated above, the labour Court exercised its discretion and did not grant back wages to the workman. Counsel for the workman could not give any reason or point out any infirmity in the award for not awarding back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute, hence this writ petition also fails and is dismissed. The interim order, if any, is vacated. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .;