- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Petitioner-employers aggrieved by the award dated 27-6-2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. Faizabad in Adjudication Case No. 138 of 1996 approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Faizabad which was initially referred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur but was subsequently transferred to Labour Court, Faizabad.
(2.) THE Labour Court issued notices to both employers as well as workman. Parties have exchanged their pleadings and were given opportunity to adduce such evidence, as they like. In short the case set up by the workman is that he was appointed by the employer-petitioner under Section 45 of Road Transport Act, 1950 as temporary Watchman at Kotila Bus Station by appointment letter dated 10-12-1982 and he joined his services on 10-12-1982 itself. It is also not disputed that w. e. f. 1-3-1983 his services were terminated. The workman has further stated that after his appointment Shri Harendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Prajapati, Yogendra Singh, Ghanshyman Singh and Abdul Rahman were appointed on 15-12-1982, 1-1-1983 and 5-1-1983. They were also terminated by the order dated 28-2- 1983 but the employers have reinstated these workmen who are admittedly junior to the workman concerned whereas the services of the concerned workman remained terminated with effect from 1-3- 1983 and they were reinstated on the same post on which they were working prior to their termination. Thus, the employers have violated the provisions of Sections 6-P and 6-Q of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and while terminating the services of the workman concerned the provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have also not been complied with. The workman therefore, prayed that the reference may be answered in his favour and termination be declared illegal. It is also stated by the workman that he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. On the other hand the employers have denied the allegations made by the workman and have set up the case that since the workman was appointed on purely temporary basis, therefore, his termination cannot be said to be either illegal or unreasonable. The workman, Dinesh Kumar has stated that Harendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Prajapati, Yogendra Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Abdul Rahman were appointed subsequent to his appointment. Dinesh Kumar was put to cross examination but he reiterated his stand. Dinesh Kumar also stated that apart from above, Abdul Rahman was appointed on 5-1-1983. Thus it is clear that these workmen who were appointed subsequent to the appointment of workman concerned and their services were terminated and were relieved w. e. f. 1-3-1983 but having been reinstated are still working whereas the workman concerned has not been reinstated and his services stands terminated.
(3.) THE Labour Court further recorded a finding that it is also not denied that the services of the workman were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case reported in 1978 (36) FLR 427, British India Corporation v. Labour Court and others, and the case reported in 1994 (69) FLR 860, THE Management, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Workman, Shyam Lal and others, and the case reported in 1994 (69) FLR 861, THE Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Workman Brij Mohan and others, the workman is entitled for full back wages and continuity of service and the termination of the workman is illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. THE Labour Court further have recorded finding that since the dispute was raised after about 8-9 years, therefore, the workman is not entitled for backwages with effect from 1-3-1983 to 31-12-1992. However, the workman will be entitled for continuity of service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the view of the taken by Labour Court is not justified and the direction for reinstatement of the workman by the Labour Court is also not justified and thus the award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.;