Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) IN spite of the Court's order, no counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner alleges that he was employed as a 'Mate' on 1.1.1985 and continuously discharged his duties without any disruption till 15.8.1988 and that his services were arbitrarily terminated on 16.8.1998 without complying with the provision of Section 6 -N of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to referred as the Act). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of termination, raised an industrial dispute in the year 1991. The Labour Court, by an award dated 8.12.2009, declined to grant the relief of reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner, but granted the relief of Rs. 25,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 1000/ - towards cost of litigation. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has given a specific finding that the workman, namely the petitioner, had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year in spite of which, the Labour Court did not set aside the order of termination nor had granted reinstatement and back wages. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court is illegal and was liable to set aside.;