ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was decided by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 31st August, 2001, whereby this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the award of the Labour Court dated 20th May, 1992.
(2.) THE employer respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition, aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, preferred a review application No. 84200 of 2001. This Court after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties vide its judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2002 rejected the aforesaid application. The employer respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21145 21146 of 2002 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to grant leave and decided the civil appeal Nos. 7028 7029 of 2003 vide its judgment dated 1st September, 2003. The Supreme Court directed the matter to be decided afresh by this Court, the relevant portion of the order dated 1st September, 2003 is quoted below: When the matter came up before the High Court under Article 226, the High Court appears to have assumed that the respondent is entitled to relief under Section 25 F without considering the issue whether the Labour Court's factual finding in respect of Section 25 FFF was incorrect and if so why? All that the High Court has stated even when the matter was drawn to its attention by way of a review petition was, that from the writ petition as well as from the perusal of the award also it cannot be said or inferred that the industry in question is closed down. This is no reason at all. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court to decide all issues raised. There shall be no order as to costs.
(3.) IT is pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court that the matter came up before this Court. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner Surendra Prasad Dwivedi, who was employed with the respondent, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to Industrial Tribunal(I), U.P., Allahabad that his services were terminated by means of an order dated 31st March, 1989 by the employer respondent No. 2 without complying with the provision of retrenchment as provided under Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in short 'U.P. Act', and the provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in short 'Central Act'.;