- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-workman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court (I), U. P. , Kanpur dated 13th December, 1996 passed in adjudication case No. 287 of 1993, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'9' to the writ petition. The following dispute was referred to the labour Court for adjudication.
(2.) AFTER receipt of the reference, the labour Court issued notices to the parties and the parties concerned have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence. The case set up by the petitioner- workman in short is that the workman was employed on 1st May, 1980 with the employer's establishment, which was earlier known as Forth Construction Branch, U. P. Jal Nigam on the post of Pump Operator for operating the pump and later on same has been renamed as Vidyut Yantrik Branch, U. P. Jal Nigam, 129 Vijay Lakshminagar, Sitapur. The workman further stated that this establishment of the employers is controlled by Superintending Engineer. He stated that he worked continuously up to 31st January, 1982. His work was satisfactory without there being any complaint whatsoever. But employers have illegally terminated his services with effect from 1st February, 1982 and while terminating the services of the workman, the provisions of Sections 4-I, 6-N and 6-P of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with. It has also been averred by the workman that before termination of his services, he was getting Rs. 268 only per month. AFTER termination of his services, he requested the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Managing Director for reinstatement, but they have refused to do so. Though they were always promising, but ultimately refused to reinstate him in service. He, therefore, claimed that he should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. The employers have set up the case that the workman was appointed as Pump Operator on 1st May, 1980 with the Executive Engineer, IV, T. C. D. , U. P. Jal Nigam, Kanpur, but when the aforesaid office has been transferred in the year 1988 to district Sitapur, the workman concerned has not raised any dispute and for the first time he has raised this dispute after a gap of twelve years. It has been further stated by the employers that in the meantime the concerned division has been transferred at different places and the old records are not available, therefore, in these circumstances the workman is not entitled for any relief. The labour Court after considering the material evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that there is no material on the basis of which a finding can be recorded that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months with the employers' establishment on the date when his services were allegedly terminated. It is also stated by the employers that since the office of employers has been transferred from Kanpur to Sitapur and the workman had raised the dispute at that time, then the relevant records are not available. The labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that on the basis of material evidence on record, it cannot be proved that workman was ever employed in the employers' establishment and in these circumstances, the reference with regard to termination of services of the workman concerned with effect from 1st February, 1982, is bad in the eye of law. Labour Court further held that the reference has been made after a gap of eleven years and that too the same is bad in the eye of law. ln view of the fact that the finding recorded by the labour Court that since the dispute has been raised after eleven years, the same has become stale in view of the word used by the apex Court in the case reported in 2002 (1) LBESR 451 (SC): JT 2001 (10) SC 428, Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Sri Shivalinga; JT 2001 (10) 429, Ram Pal v. Urmila Sethi and 2001 (2) LBESR 798 (SC) AIR 2001 SC 2562, Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U P. State Electricity Board and others. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court, the findings arrived at by the labour Court cannot be interfere with, particularly the labour Court has recorded a finding that there is no evidence which may demonstrate that the workman has ever worked with the employers. In this view of the matter, the award of the labour Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .;