ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) HEARD Miss Bharati Sapru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Shukla learned standing counsel for the State -respondent. Nobody is present on behalf of the contesting respondent even in the revised reading of the cause list.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, Meerut dated 12th April, 1989 in a pending adjudication case. This petition is an example of how a powerful employer can stall the proceedings of an industrial dispute pending before the labour court for more than 18 years with the help of legal technicalities and niceties. The petitioner is a Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and owns various units located in different parts of the country.
(3.) THE services of the workman, respondent No. 2, were terminated on 11th September, 1985. Against the said action of the respondent No. 2, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the said dispute Under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Meerut. The said dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 198 of 1986. The labour court framed following issues, reads as follows : 'Issue No. I; Whether the workman's services were terminated on 11.8.1985 or 11.9.1985? Issue No. II: Whether the workman concerned had been engaged in specific time -bound nature of jobs and the total period of service did not exceed 240 days from the last date of his service? Issue No. III: Whether the workman concerned was covered by the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employer had been flouting these provisions and if so, to what effect? Issue No. IV : Whether workman junior to Chanderveer Singh had been retained in service while terminating his services and even fresh hands were engaged after ignoring Chandraveer Singh's rightful claims? issue No. V: To what relief/ compensation is the workman entitled?' ;