Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioners-U.P. State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer'), by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal (4), U.P., Agra, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 23.11.1996, passed in Adjudication Case No. 89 of 1991, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
(2.) The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) vide order dated 10.12.1990, have referred the following dispute before the Tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the termination of the services of workman Natwar Singh, son of Shri Bankey Lal, designation chaukidar from 16.12.1989 by the employer is illegal and/or improper? If so, to what relief/compensation is he entitled and with what other details?"
(3.) The Tribunal after receipt of the aforesaid reference from the State Government issued notices to the parties concerned and both the parties have exchanged their pleadings and filed such evidences, as they desire to file. The respondent No. 1 the workman concerned in its pleadings have set up the case before the Tribunal that he was employed under the verbal order of the then Executive Engineer, Secondary Works Division, U.P. State Electricity Board on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600 per month and that he was employed from 1.4.1989 and worked continuously till his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the employer on 16th December, 1989. The workman has also alleged that since he continued to work as chaukidar, therefore, he had requested the employer to pay the wages in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1,190 plus dearness allowance, house rent allowance. C.C.A. and Medical allowance etc., which was the scale for the post against which he was working. He has also alleged that his services were orally terminated from 16.12.1989 and that on 19.12.1989 another person related to the Executive Engineer was employed in his place. Thus, there has been violation of Section 6N, 6P and 6Q of the Act and he should consequently be re-instated with full back wages with continuity of service with effect from 16th December, 1989. As against this, the employers have set up the case in their pleading that the workman was never employed by the employer as there is no such post and in fact he has never worked with them, as alleged. With regard to the request made by the workman that the employer may be directed to produce the muster roll of the relevant period, the employer have stated that since the workman has never been employed, there is no documents available with them regarding the workman concerned. The employer have not produced the muster roll and the relevant records where it is alleged that the workman concerned has worked with them. On a question being put in the cross-examination, the Executive Engineer has not been able to explain as to how the Board was maintaining a store worth Rs. 20 lacs if there was no chaukidar. The employer have stated that there was no chaukidar and in any case, this work was given to the security agency, but no such contract with the security agency was produced either by documentary evidence, or by any other method by the employer. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the employer have not denied the existence of the store and also the existence of the post and personate of chaukidar, but they tried to distinguish the claim of the workman concerned that the supervision and surveillance was entrusted to the security agency, but neither any documents, nor any other statement was produced before the Tribunal. As already stated above, the Executive Engineer in his cross-examination has not denied these facts. Admittedly, the workman concerned had been sending registered letters to the employer seeking employment with them after the alleged unlawful termination of his services by the employer, which shows that six posts of chaukidar were sanctioned in Superintending Engineers Circle which includes the division in which the workman was employed and that the sanctioned grade for chaukidar was Rs. 900-1,190. It is also averred by the workman that the payment of salary of lesser amount than the sanctioned grade for chaukidar amounts to unfair labour practise under Section 2 (r). read with the Vth Schedule, Item 10 of the Act.;