- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Shri C. K. Sharma Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Negi Counsel for the respondent. By the present writ petition the peti tioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certio rari quashing the impugned award dated 10. 6. 1997 (Annexure-1) to the writ peti tion passed by the Presiding Officer, La bour Court, U. P Haldwani in Adjudica tion Case No. 96 of 1991.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the given writ petition are that in exercise of the powers under section 4-K of the Indus trial Dispute Act, the State of U. P vide its order dated 17. 7. 1991 referred the fol lowing dispute for adjudication. The terms of reference is being reproduced here in below: "kiya SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNEY SHARAMIK RAHMAT ALI PUTRA JUMMA TATHA SHAFAT ALI PUTRA SHAUKAT ALI KO NIYAMIT KIYA JANA CHAHIYEY? YADI HAN TO KIS TITHI SEY TATHA KIS ANYA VIVRAN KEY SATH. " At the time of the filing of the writ petition following order was passed on 16. 4. 1998. Hon' ble S. H. A Raza, J. "admit. Issue Notice to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 returnable at an early date. List thereafter. Meanwhile it is provided that in case petitioner pays to the respond ents workman their wages at the rate of wage last drawn by them from the date of filing of the writ petition and will con tinue to pay the same in accordance with the provisions contained in section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act (Central) the award made by the Labour Court shall remain stayed. " The order was further modified on 12. 10. 2000. The same is quoted below: "hon'ble S. H. A. Raza, J. The order dated 16. 04. 1998 is clari fied only to the extent that the benefit of the order dated 16. 04. 1998 would be available to Sri Shafat Ali, respondent No. 3.
(3.) THUS, the dispute is confined only with regard to the extent of benefit given by the Labour Court in favour of the re spondent No. 3 alone. Upon registration of the adjudication of Case No. 96 of 1996 the written state ment was filed by the respondent. The petitioner has filed the reply. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and has stated that he has worked as Mason in the Civil En gineering Department of the Employer Fac tory continuously for 240 days and has also prayed for the regularization. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below: Paragraph- 2 "that the contents of paragraph 1 and 1 (A) of the E. W. S. are not admitted as stated therein. The work man concerned with the abovenoted case' have worked as Mason in the Civil Engi neering Department of the Employer's Fac tory and having worked as such continu ously for two hundred forty days prior to 10. 9. 90 they demanded their regulariza tion in (permanent) service. Vide their ap plication dated 28. 7. 90 and of the same employer affected termination of their services on 10. 9. 1990 prejudicially. " Paragraph - 4 "that the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the E. W. S. are not admitted as stated therein. Masons job is a permanent nature of work specially in the employers factory, which has been undergoing expansion of its plant and machinery and has a vast residential colony for its workmen. " Paragraph - 5 "that the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the E. W. S. are not admitted being incorrect and misleading. The workman concerned with the case have worked for more than 240 days dur ing 12 calendar months prior to 10. 9. 90 and it is self-evident from the above posi tion that the employer need their service permanently and as such the workmen are entitled to their absorption in permanent service of the employer. ";