- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. Being aggrieved against the award dated 13.2.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the present writ petition has been preferred with further prayer to issue mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and consequential benefits on the post of supervisor along with the seniority.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was acquired by the State Government which was handed over for establishing Petro Chemical Fertilizers by the Gas Authority of India Limited (Gail). The land of the formers including the land of the petitioner was acquired which was situated in District Auraiya. Since the matter was settled in an agreement, hence no dispute was raised against the acquisition though only meager amount of compensation was paid because the offer was given in the agreement to provide job to one member of the family whose lands were acquired. The Government Order was issued by the State of U.P. for rehabilitation of those family members whose lands have been acquired or to be acquired. A tripartite agreement was executed on 29.6.1998 signed by Management of the Gail Authority and the family of those persons whose lands were acquired. The petitioners have passed intermediate examination. For the purpose of providing employment an examination was conducted by the respondent GAIL under the supervision and control of the respondent No. 2. The petitioners were declared successful and they were directed to be present on 15.9.2000 at Pata Gate (Main) for supervision of horticulture activities.
(3.) The petitioners were selected and they were engaged for supervision work of the horticulture activities and they were discharging their duties without any complaint. However, when there was no payment of regular salary/wages and other emoluments and benefits, then there was some demand and agitation. Thereafter they were removed from the services w.e.f. 10.10.2001. However, no written order was given. By oral order they were not permitted to continue to work. When the Petition No. 5024 of 2002 was filed which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to raise issue before Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Adjudication Case No. 43 of 2005. However, Labour Court accepting the version of Management of the GAIL recorded the finding that the petitioners were not appointed directly by the respondent GAIL but they were engaged through contractor for maintenance of horticulture work, and plant township those works were of permanent in nature. They were getting salary and wages directly from the GAIL and as they were appointed as per assurance and agreement, hence the acts of the respondent GAIL authority are arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The Labour Court failed to consider this aspect that the appointment was given to the petitioners in view of the agreement entered into between the parties. Neither the claim was considered for reinstatement with back wages nor even the direction was issued for payment of the damages and retrenchment compensation hence, the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and against the government policy and as such the same is liable to be set aside.;