R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Rama Kant Dwivedi seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the award dated 26th February, 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad, respondent No. 1, said to have been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28th August, 1998, filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Stenographer in the establishment of the G.E.C. Alsthom India Limited, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, on 22nd March, 1992. His services came to be terminated vide letter dated 9th May, 1995, with effect from 13th May, 1995. According to him, one Arshad Ali was appointed as a Welder (Trainee) by the respondent No. 2 whose services were also terminated on 20th December, 1994. Arshad Ali raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No. 1, and registered as Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1994. The petitioner also raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad and registered as Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1996. Before the Industrial Tribunal, both the parties filed the written statement. Documentary evidence was also filed by the parties. The Industrial Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence and material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a trainee and he did not come within the purview of 'workman' and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are not applicable and the retrenchment is not illegal. However, in the case of Arshad Ali, the Tribunal had held the termination to be illegal and had directed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits which has been upheld by this Court.
(3.) I have heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Sanjay Sharma, on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri V. R. Agrawal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan, on behalf of the respondent No. 2.;