B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Whether in view of the inclusive definition of 'employer' under Section 2 (i) (iv) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (compendiously the Act), the petitioner would be covered within the expression of 'employer' whether the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse ; and whether there was any justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, are the short questions for determination in tho present petition filed by the employer, seeking the relief for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 31-8-92 (Annexure-1 to the petition), setting aside the order of termination of service of workmen and directing him to be reinstated with half back wages.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that a reference was made under Section 4-K of the Act to the effect whether the employers ware justified UPLBEC (1) - 52 in terminating the services of their peon-cum-security guard, the respondent No. 2, and if go, what was the relief to which the workman was entitled.
(3.) Petitioner's case was that the respondent No. 2, the workman was not employed by them, but subsequently they have taken a case that the respondent No. 2, the workman was employed by the respondent No. 3, M/s Wings Security Services. Consequently the petitioners were not entitled to reinstate the workman or to pay his wages.;