Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 26.8.1991 and also the order dated 21.4.1987 by which the Labour Court has condoned the delay.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Samir Sharma at length.
(3.) By means of the order dated 25.2.1976 the temporary services of the respondent workman were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required. The appeal filed by the respondent workman before the Regional Manager was also rejected by order dated 14.4.1977. An application dated 8.10.1986 was filed by the respondent workman before the Regional Conciliation, Officer to which an objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the delay of about more than 10 years in filing the application before the Regional Conciliation Officer but by means of the order dated 21.4.1987 the Regional Conciliation Officer condoned the delay in filing the application. In paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 21.4.1987 but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the said order could be challenged after the award was given by the Labour Court. The State Government, on 1.3.1989, made a reference to the Labour Court as to whether the order dated 25.2.1976 terminating the services of the workman was valid and if not then to what relief the workman was entitled. The Labour Court in its award dated 26.8.1991 has held that the services of the respondent workman had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It has, therefore, set aside the order dated 25.2.1976 holding that the services had not been terminated in accordance with law and reinstated the workman with full back wages.;