Anjani Kumar - (1.) -Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 26.5.1982, passed by Labour Court, U. P., Bareilly in Adjudication Case No. 206 of 1981, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-'11' to the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that concerned workman, namely, Ved Prakash Sharma, who was an employee of the petitioner, whose services have been terminated in the year 1966, approached the State Government with the prayer that the matter of termination may be referred to the labour court when he was acquitted from the criminal court from the charges levelled against him. The State Government referred the aforesaid matter by the order dated 7.8.1981 to the labour court for adjudication. The labour court issued notices to the employer as well as the employee-workman concerned. Both the parties have exchanged their pleadings and also adduced evidence. The labour court after going through the entire pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties has found that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the petitioner-employer before terminating the services of the workman concerned. It has also not been disputed that while terminating the services of the workman, provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act'), has not been complied with. In this view of the matter, the labour court has arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the services of the workman concerned was illegal and directed for re-instatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer has emphasised that the direction of the labour court for re-instatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages deserves to be set aside on the ground that the services of the workman were terminated in the year 1966 and the workman has approached the State Government to refer the matter before the labour court in the year 1981, when the reference was made. In this view of the matter, according to the employers counsel the claim of the workman concerned had become stale as it was highly belated, therefore it should be rejected for laches and the reference should not have been made for this reason alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the direction for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages ought not have been granted for the reasons that admittedly the workman concerned was criminally prosecuted, though ultimately he was acquitted, but the employer has lost his confidence for re-instatement of the workman, who has been criminally prosecuted. In any case, admittedly after the termination of the services of the workman in the year 1966, till the date of the award the workman has admittedly not worked, particularly the fact that the workman concerned was only a seasonal employee, therefore the direction of the labour court for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be set aside.;