- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 28th April, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, the petitioners- employers U. P. State Electricity Board (now U. P. Power Corporation Limited) have challenged the impugned award dated 3rd September, 1990, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') in adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. From the narration of fact, it appears that the respondent- workman Mohd. Jamil was employed in September, 1977 as a muster roll employee on daily wages. The services of the workmen were terminated in the year 1979, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised in which two questions were required to be answered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after going through the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties while deciding the point No. 1 have found that the termination of services of concerned workmen, namely, Mohd. Jamil and Nand Lal, were illegal and therefore, directed for re-instatement of the workmen concerned. The point No. 2, i. e. , whether the workmen are entitled for regularisation/confirmation, which was framed in such a manner that the need of its decision will arise only if point No. 1 was decided in favour of workmen, namely, Mohd. Jamil and Nand Lal, i. e. , whether the termination of the two workmen were legal or justified, if not the Industrial Tribunal was to decide as to whether, the workmen have become regular/permanent employees. The Tribunal answered the point No. 1 in favour of the workmen, therefore, there was no justification to have left point No. 2 to be decided. Aggrieved thereby, the workmen concerned have approached this Court and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983. This Court vide its order dated 19th February, 1990 allowed the writ petition set aside the order dated 30th August, 1983 to the extent that it does not require any decision on the second question and directed the Tribunal to decide the second question relating to confirmation/permanency of the two workmen named in the reference. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1990 runs as under : "the writ petition, as such, is liable to be allowed. The order dated 30-8-1983 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), is quashed and Industrial Tribunal 1, U. P. at Allahabad is directed to decide the second question relating to confirmation/permanency of the two workmen, named in the reference, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. " As a consequence of the Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1990 being allowed, the matter was taken up by the Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties have decided the second question in favour of the workmen by the award impugned in the present writ petition. The labour Court have considered the intervening facts, which have been vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners in the following manner : "it was held that Mohd. Jamil shall be deemed to be in unbroken continuous service for a period of 8 years. However, on point No. 2 regarding his permanency the Court simply held that it is well warranted in a case like this that the employers even on human consideration should examine the possibilities of absorbing the workman Mohd. Jameel on a job of regular nature. Against this award also Civil Misc. Writ No. 17727 of 1985 has been filed. It was connected with earlier Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983 and ultimately in Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983, his Court passed the order directing this Tribunal to decide the point No. 2 raised in adjudication case No. 168 of 1980. "
(3.) THE labour Court after considering the aforesaid fact, which have been repeated by learned Counsel for the petitioners before this Court have recorded findings, which run as under. "i, therefore, repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the employers and proceed to decide the matter which has been directed by this Court in writ petition filed by the workman, therefore, the labour Court considered the case and found that a perusal of the earlier award as well as after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the workmen concerned will be deemed to have been regularised under law with effect from the date the services were terminated. " Learned Counsel for the petitioners- employers have contended that in between because of the several litigations between the parties, the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from the manifest error of law, which is contrary to the evidence on record and contrary to the assertion/admission made by the workmen themselves. On questioning as to what is the contrary evidence on record, learned Counsel have referred to several interim orders, which were passed between the parties and tried to assail these findings to the extent that these findings suffer from the manifest error of law. It is also admitted case of the parties that litigations which were relied upon by the learned Counsel have become final, and also that the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983 has become final between the parties. So far as this aspect of the workmen is concerned, the labour Court have suitably dealt with and, in my opinion, the same do not warrant any further interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners- employers then argued that on the very nature of the appointment of the workmen concerned, they were appointed on daily wage basis and the project in which they were appointed and working have come to an end, therefore, they relied upon several decisions of the apex Court as well as by this Court that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in directing the regularisation/confirmation to these workmen. In my opinion, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners- employers do not apply to the facts of the present case. It will not be out of place of mention here that this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No. 17727 of 1985 filed by the petitioners- employers and the consequence of the Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983 filed by the workmen was allowed, whereby the Tribunal have held that the workmen's termination was contrary to law and the remand order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983 directing the Tribunal to decide the question of regularisation makes this case distinguish on the facts than the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which as already held, do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. This writ petition, therefore, has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.;