Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -This writ petition is finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties on merits.
(2.) THE petitioner-employer, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur dated 11th April, 1984 passed in Adjudication Case No. 321 of 1979, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The following dispute has been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The labour court after exchange of the pleadings allowed the parties to lead evidence and after considering the evidence of the respective parties held that the termination of services of the workman concerned was contrary to the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the 'Act') as he has not been paid relevant amount as contemplated under Section 6N of the Act. The employer have taken up the case that since the services of the workman concerned were of temporary nature and he was used to be employed when there was necessity or exigencies of his service. The case set up by the workman concerned was that he was engaged by the employer and had worked for more than 240 days in the previous calendar year before termination of his service, i.e., on 21st January, 1976.
(3.) THE Labour Court after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the workman concerned has completed more than 240 days within the meaning of word used in the Act and it is admitted fact that the provision of Section 6N of the Act has not been complied with while terminating the services of the workman concerned. THE Labour Court, thus, arrived at the finding that the termination of services of the workman concerned is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. THE Labour Court, therefore, awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full wages. This Court has stayed the operation of the award by the order dated 9th April, 1985 and passed the following order : "Issue notice. I direct that until further orders, the respondents shall not take steps to enforce the Award, dated 11th of April, 1984 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), provided the petitioner, subject to the final orders to be made in the writ petition, reinstate respondent No. 3 in service, within one month from today's date and goes on paying his wages every month regularly. So far as the wages for the period April after reinstatement is concerned, the same shall be paid by the petitioner by the 7th of May, 1985 and likewise the wages for the subsequent month's shall be paid by the 7th of the following month. In case of default, this order shall stand automatically vacated." In this view of the matter, the workman has been reinstated and was paid his wages. The controversy remains only with regard to back wages from the date of termination till the date of award. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the workman concerned is illegal and further that the workman concerned has completed more than 240 days, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The award, therefore, deserves to be upheld.;