V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) U.P. State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, has approached this Court assailing the validity of the award dated 05.10.1996, directing reinstatement of Mahesh Chandra Sharma with back wages in the petitioners' establishment.
(2.) Brief background of the case as has been disclosed in the writ petition is that Mahesh Chandra Sharma had worked only for 203 days at petitioners' establishment, and even during this 203 days, he worked for 73 days with Vidyut Vitran Khand, Rural Dehradun with effect from December, 1989 to March 1990, and further he was member of Hydroelectric Employees' union, Dehradun, and through the said union industrial dispute had been raised questioning termination of 57 employees. Said reference was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 10 of 1992, which was decided along with Adjudication No. 9 of 1992 on 22.01.1996. During pendency of aforesaid two references, wherein Mahesh Chandra Sharma was only party, Mahesh Chandra Sharma raised another industrial dispute for same cause of action, and the State Government on 06.05.1992 referred the dispute for adjudication and same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 36 of 1992. In the said proceedings written statements were filed by respective parties, thereafter rejoinder statements were also filed. Mahesh Chandra Sharma deposed before the Labour Court. Muster Rolls for the relevant months were also filed. Respondent workman also wrote letter to the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand for grant of certificate. Thereafter, award in question had been passed, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
(3.) To this writ petition counter-affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that respondent workman had worked for 265 days and details of the said work have also been sought to be disclosed before this Court. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.;