B.Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner who is also running a Sugar Unit known as Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala District Meerut challenging the award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 2.9.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No. 131 of 1997. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent No. 2 -Hussain Pal claimed to have been appointed as Weighment clerk in the concerned Sugar Unit and his services are stated to have been terminated without giving any reason on 15.4.1996. However, it is stated that the reasons for terminating the services of respondent No. 2 were given in the order itself to the effect that the respondent No. 2 had issued forged Parchees showing fraudulent purchase of sugar cane. A first information report was also lodged against the respondent No. 2 information of which was also published in the Dainik Jagran news paper on 2.5.1996. On behalf of the employer a written statement 7 -A was filed wherein it was stated that the services of the respondent No. 2 were infact terminated on 18.4.1996 at 8 a.m. and not on 15.4.1996 and, therefore, the reference order itself was bad. The case of the petitioner further was that the respondent No. 2 was not a seasonal worker but was engaged in a purely temporary capacity during the crushing season 1989 -1990 and thereafter he worked during the crushing season from March, 1990 to June, 1990 for a period of 68 days. On completion of the crushing season his services came to an end automatically. When the crushing season 1992 -1993 commenced the respondent No. 2 gave an application before the management to be again engaged as a Weighment Clerk and the management by oral orders engaged him as a temporary Weighment Clerk. Thereafter as and when his services were required the respondent No. 2 continued to be engaged by the petitioner. The case of the respondent No. 2 further was that he worked continuously during the crushing season 1989 -90 up to 1994 -1995. It was also stated that in the crushing season 1995 -1996 reservation orders were issued under Section 15 of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and because the respondent No. 2 had worked previously in the earlier crushing season, therefore, he was again engaged by the petitioner -management during the crushing season 1995 -1996 for the purchase of sugar cane as a temporary Weighment Clerk. During the crushing season of 1995 -1996 he worked as a temporary Weighment Clerk on 5.3.1996 and 6.3.1996 in the Sugar Cane Purchase Center, Chur.
(2.) THE case of the management before the Labour Court was that during the crushing season of 1995 -1996, the respondent No. 2 had been engaged on 5.3.1996 and 6.3.1996 at the Sugar Cane Purchase Center Chur under instructions that he was not to issue any purchase Parchees against the Rules and purchase Parchee was to be issued only on verifying the Society Parchee from the Growers List. On 4.8.1996 a letter was issued to the petitioner -management from the Secretary Incharge, Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Daurala which was received by the management on 8.4.1996 wherein it was alleged that in the Sugar Cane Center, Chur on 5.3.1996 and 6.3.1996 the concerned workman -respondent No. 2 had purchased sugar cane allegedly on 59 Society Parchees out of which on investigation 40 Society Parchees were found to be forged documents and that these 40 Parchees had not been issued by the Society and yet the respondent No. 2 had shown these Parchees in the Grower's Daily Purchase Report. Accordingly a first information report was also lodged against the respondent No. 2. On a preliminary investigation conducted by the management the allegations made by the Secretary Incharge, Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. dated 8.4.1996 were found to be correct which resulted in lost of confidence of the management in the respondent No. 2 on account of which the order dated 15.4.1996 was passed terminating the services of the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.4.1996, the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court by Notification dated 3.11.1997 in exercise of powers under Section K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly an Adjudication Case No. 131 of 1997 was instituted. The reference order for consideration of the Labour Court was as to whether the order of termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 15.4.1996 was legal and valid and if not what relief the respondent No. 2 was entitled to. The Labour Court after considering the various submissions of the respondent No. 2 as well as of the management and the documents on record came to the conclusion that the order dated 15.4.1996 terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 was an illegal order and it accordingly directed the reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 in service on the same wages as drawn by him plus 50% of other dues as the respondent No. 2 would otherwise be entitled to. The Labour Court further directed that the respondent No. 2 workman would also be entitled to the entire wages from the date of the award. Hence the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1. List has been revised. No one appears for the respondent No. 2, although a counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2.;