R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Noida") seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 26th June, 1990 passed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, and also the reference made by the State Government under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and other consequential reliefs.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows: - According to the petitioner, it is an authority created under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act for the object of development of land for industrial, commercial and residential purposes in the industrial area in Noida in the district of Ghaziabad, now Gautam Buddh Nagar. K.D. Sharma, respodent No. 3, was employed on daily wages as a casual labour for n specified period with effect from 13th December, 1984. His work was not found satisfactory and the petitioner did not assign any work from 21st August, 1986. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 worked from 13th December, 1984 to 20th August, 1986 for different periods. The details of the period during which he had worked is given below: - Mising Page no.851 and had been assigned work for certain sepcified period. According to him, since the respondent No. 3 was not employed as a permanent labour, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. He further submitted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner as it is not an "industry". It is a statutory body created for the purposes of planned industrial, commercial and residential development of the industrial area in Noida under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act. Thus, he submitted that the entire proceedings before the Labour Court were wholly without jurisdiction. He also submitted that the petitioner has its own service regulations governing the service conditions of all the employees and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity for filing the rejoinder statement, which has resulted in gross violation of justice.
(3.) SRI Shyam Narain, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 workman, submitted that the respondent No. 3 had worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of his retrenchment and, therefore, the provision of Section 6 -N of the Act ought to have been complied with. Non -compliance of Section 6 -N had rendered the termination void. He invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet filed as Annexure CA -4 to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 3 and submitted that for filing the rejoinder statement, the Labour Court had given time on 25th June, 1988, 16th July, 1988, 6th August, 1988, 17th September, 1988, 1st October, 1998 and 22nd October, 1988 and when in spite of several opportunities being given, the petitionr did not file the rejoinder statement and also did not pay the costs, the Labour Court vide order dated 7th November, 1998 decided to proceed exparte without giving any further time to the petitioner to file rejoinder statement. Thus, the petitioner is liable to be blamed for not filing the rejoinder statement within the time allowed by the Labour Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the planned development of industrial, commercial and residential area in Noida and, therefore, it is an "industry" covered by the provisions of the Act.;