Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -The petitioner workman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur dated 31st August, 1993 passed in Adjudication Case No. 33 of 1992, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, seeking the prayer that this Court may (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 31st August, 1993, and (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vide its order dated 20th January, 1992, before the Labour Court for adjudication. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... 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 was that he was appointed as driver by the employer on 12th February, 1976. On 18th February, 1979 suddenly he fell ill. Thereafter on 25th April, 1979 since his brother was convicted with the death sentence by Sessions Court in Maharashtra, he was busy in doing pairvi of his brother's case in Bombay High Court. It is further stated that he has submitted application for medical leave on 18th February, 1979 and thereafter, the same has been sent by Registered Post on 25th September, 1979 and after availing the leave when he reported for duty on 1st February, 1980, he was informed by the Assistant Regional Manager that his name has been struck off by the employer vide its order dated 22nd May, 1979 with effect from 18th March, 1979 from the waiting list because he was absent from duties without any information. It was also the case of the workman that since the workman concerned had worked for more than three years continuously, his services cannot be terminated without complying with the procedure prescribed for retrenchment. Admittedly, in this case the procedure prescribed for retrenchment had not been followed. The employers have taken stand that the dispute with regard to termination of services has not been raised under Section 2A of the Act and secondly the dispute was raised after a lapse of twelve years, but employers have admitted that the concerned workman was recruited as driver and his name was kept in the waiting list on 12th February, 1976. The employers have further stated that they have not received any application for medical leave of the workman, therefore, since the workman is continuously absenting himself from duty, it was presumed that he has abandoned his services and his name has been struck off from the waiting list.
(3.) THE Labour Court has considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has found that the workman concerned has since been employed in the year 1976 and on 22nd of March, 1979 when his services were terminated, he had completed more than three years continuous service. It is also admitted that neither any retrenchment compensation has been paid to workman concerned, nor any notice of termination was served upon him. THE Labour Court, in these circumstances, directed that the workman concerned is entitled for the reinstatement, but considering the argument advanced on behalf of the employers that the dispute has been raised after lapse of twelve years, the workman has not been given the benefit of continuity of service, nor the back wages. It is this award, which as stated above, been challenged by the workman concerned by means of present writ petition. THE prayer No. 1 for quashing of the award is apparently not correct because if the award itself is quashed, the reinstatement part itself loses its importance. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced argument that it should be confined only to the reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employers has justified the award and argued that the Labour Court has rightly not awarded the continuity of service and full back wages because of the undue delay with which the workman has raised the dispute. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-workman as well as the employers, in my opinion, in the teeth of the finding recorded by the Labour Court, which cannot be demonstrated to be suffering from the manifest error or law. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-workman deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. So far as the argument that the workman concerned should be granted full back wages with continuity of service is concerned, I see no justification in view of the reasons given by the Labour Court to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. THE interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.;