Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -These writ petitions raise common question of facts and law and challenge awards given by Labour Court, U. P., Rampur, in different adjudication cases registered before the labour court in pursuance of the reference made by the State Government under Section 4K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in all the writ petitions, with consent of the parties the writ petitions are being finally decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 46578 of 2003 arises out of Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 with which case several other adjudication cases were consolidated by the order of the labour court and Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 was treated to be leading case. Facts and evidence of Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 are being noted in detail to appreciate and decide the issues raised in these cases. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Smt. Suman Sirohi appearing for the workman in Writ Petition No. 46578 of 2003 and in some other writ petitions and Sri G. R. Jain appearing for the workman in Writ Petition No. 46453 of 2003 and in some other writ petitions.
(3.) WRIT Petition No. 46578 of 2003 challenges the award dated 17th July, 2003, given by the labour court in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998, 84 of 1996, 5 of 1998 and 13 of 1998. A reference was made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 17th July, 1996 to the labour court as to whether the action of the employers in terminating the services of Rishi Pal Singh, Chowkidar, with effect from 27th August, 1995, was valid or not and if not then to what relief the workman is entitled for. Written statement was filed by the workman as well as the employer. The case of workman in the written statement was that U. P. Forest Corporation is a public corporation, which is industry within the meaning of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 2 was engaged on 7th November, 1983, as Chowkidar and he worked thereafter in every year. In the seniority list of workmen his name was at Serial No. 83. The workman received letter dated 26th June, 1995, proposing to retrench his services with effect from 27th June, 1995. The workman was not given one month notice nor given any retrenchment compensation. There was no compliance of Section 25M. Respondent No. 2 was a senior workman whereas several junior workmen were retained violating the principle of last come first go. A written statement was filed by the employer in which it was stated that in lieu of one month notice one month salary and retrenchment compensation was given to the workman which was accepted by the workman. It was further stated that workman has utilized the compensation. It was also stated that the workman is employed in gainful employment. On behalf of the employer, statement of one witness, namely, Kedar Singh Chauhan, was recorded who in his examination-in-chief stated that workman was a daily wager and was not made permanent, due to lessening of work the retrenchment was done. The workman was paid retrenchment compensation, which has been utilized by him, and no objection was raised by the workman against his retrenchment. The Corporation is in bad financial position. In his cross-examination he stated that he himself did not participate in the retrenchment proceedings. On behalf of the workman, statement of Rishi Pal, who in his examination-in-chief stated that employers have not fully complied the provisions of Section 6N of the Act and juniors have been retained and senior has been terminated. In his cross-examination, the workman stated that retrenchment compensation was received by post, which he and his co-workers have utilized. The workman also filed Photostat copy of certain documents along with list dated 16th January, 2002, containing certain letters of the employers and seniority list. The labour court vide its award dated 30th July, 2003, declared the termination violative of Section 6N of the Act. The labour court also observed that it is matter of surprise that juniors have been retained whereas senior has been retrenched. On the aforesaid findings, the termination was held to be illegal and workman was treated to be in continuous service and was reinstated with full back wages. Similar awards were given in Adjudication Case Nos. 84 of 1996, 5 of 1998 and 13 of 1998.;