RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 23. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -I, U.P., Allahabad.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent nos.1 to 23 were working as daily wagers with the petitioner. They have been engaged between 1985 to 1989. Their services have been dispensed with by oral order on 31.12.1998. From the record, it appears that respondent nos.1 to 23 raised industrial disputes in the year 2006 and the reference has been made in the year 2007, which have been registered as case no.20 of 2007 to 42 of 2007. Before the Industrial Tribunal the case of the respondents was that they have worked as daily wagers for more than 240 days in preceding calendar year and they have been retrenched without any reason and without giving any notice in violation of Section 6 -N and Section 6 -P of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was also the claim of the respondent nos.1 to 23 that the services of juniors have been regularized and for no reason they have been retrenched. Tribunal has allowed the reference and has held that the respondents have been terminated illegally and, accordingly oral termination order dated 31.12.1998 have been set aside and they have been reinstated in the service with full back wages, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that in each case, the petitioner has filed reply giving complete details of the employment in each calendar year in para 3 of the written statement. The complete details of each respondent is annexed as annexure -12 to the writ petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, the said details have not been disputed and only vague assertions have been made that they have worked for more than 240 days. She submitted that the Presiding Officer has not recorded any finding that the respondents have worked for more than 240 days in preceding calendar year and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for any notice as required under Section 6 -N of the Act before the termination of their service. She further submitted that it is wrong to say that junior daily wagers have been retained and the seniors have been retrenched.;