- (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Shukla for the respondents.
(2.) The writ petition, which was filed against the award of Labour Tribunal was dismissed by judgment dated 13.09.2013. The petitioners have filed this review application along with delay condonation application. In the affidavit, it has been stated that judgment was not uploaded on internet up to 11.11.2013. A copy of the judgment was produced by the respondents on 25.11.2013. Then an inquiry was made and certified copy of the judgment was obtained and review application was filed. Short delay in filing the review application is condoned. The review application was heard and is decided on merit.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners has raised the following grounds in support of the review application:- A. Because this Hon'ble court failed to consider that no finding having been given by the Tribunal about the delegation of power to Sri Prem Garg to act as state government and this fact having not been disputed by the respondent in the writ proceeding the learned single judge has made an error apparent on the face of record. B. Because the petitioner being not an industry and was discharging sovereign functions and the decisions by this Hon'ble Court made an error apparent on the face of record is not awaiting for the decision of the larger bench. C. Because this Hon'ble Court had made an error apparent on the face of record in stopping the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the reference after the award is made. D. Because this Hon'ble Court failed to address on the case issue whether the respondent had resigned on 31.07.1992 or nor which the tribunal fails to address in absence of a reference by the state government to this effect the Hon'ble Court made an error apparent on the face of record. E. Because, the resignation letter dated 31.07.1992 being on record alongwith categorical averment that the respondent had not worked this Hon'ble Court made an error apparent on the face of record in giving him back wages and continually in service which is in teeth of the decisions passed by the Apex Court apart from in violation of the principal of no work no pay as admittedly the respondent has not worked during the pendency of the dispute either before this Hon'ble Court or before the tribunal has not stated that he is not gainfully employed. F. Because the petitioner is not an industry therefore the award given by the Labour Tribunal is without jurisdiction. G. Because, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Sri Prem Garg has not been delegated the power to act as State Government therefore made by him is illegal. H. Because, the issue referred for jurisdiction to the Tribunal having been incorrectly framed the award is vitiated in the eyes of law and the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing award. I. Because, the appointment of the respondent having been made without any advertisement the appointment was void abinitio. J. Because, the provisions of 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act having been complied and in fact the respondent having resigned on 31.07.1992 the finding given by the Tribunal is perverse and totally contrary to record. K. Because, the employee having appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 20 without any advertisement having worked and further being in gainful employment the Tribunal made an error apparent on the face of record in giving of award of reinstatement with 50% back wages. L. Because, there are no material or pleading by the respondent to prove that section 6N has been violated, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and irrational. M. Because, the tribunal made a manifest error of law in assuming that because the respondent had sent letters complaining the alleged obstruction by petitioner in his signing attendant register, the resignation letter was not given and section 6N has been violated is perverse, irrational and arbitrary. N. Because, there being no pleading or evidence to show termination of service of respondent the finding of the tribunal that provisions of section 6N have been violated are irrational, perverse to which no reasonable man of ordinary prudence could arrive. O. Because, the order dated 08.07.1997 having been passed on perverse grounds in an irrational manner depriving the petitioner to add documentary evidence to show that the respondent was employed and had resigned the Labour Tribunal acted with manifest illegality.;