- (1.) BY filing the instant writ petition, petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned award dated 23rd January, 1993 passed in Adjudication Case No.303 of 1989 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow.
(2.) AS per factual matrix of the case, Uttar Pradesh Bijali Karamchari Sangh through its Secretary raised an industrial dispute on which following reference was made: "(1) KAYA SEWA YOJAKON DWARA PARISHISHTHA MEIN ANKIT APANE 84 CHHATNISHUDA SHRAMIKON KO PUNARNIYUKTT NA KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHAWA AVAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/ ANUTOSH PANE KE ADHIKARI HAI TATHA KIS ANYA KARAN SAHIT ? (2) KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA PARISHISHTHA MEIN ANKIT APNE 84 SHRMIKON KO NIYAMIT NA KIYA JANA UCHIT TATH/ATHAWA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI TO VIVADIT SHRMIK KIS TITHI SE STHAYEE GHOSHIT KIYE JANE KE ADHIKARI HAI -
(3.) IT was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that concerned workmen were engaged for completion of particular work on mustar -roll basis and their service automatically came to an end with the completion of said work as such there was no question of re -engagement or regularization of services of those workmen, the industrial dispute was highly belated as it was raised after about 10 years and as such no relief could have been granted to the said workmen. It was further submitted that services of the concerned workman was to be terminated by eflux of time on completion of workman automatically and as they had not completed 240 days of continuous service so they were not entitled to any relief after about 10 years of termination of their services. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that a perusal of the impugned award reveals that reference no.2 was rejected and answered in negative on the admitted facts that all the concerned workmen had left the job and their services automatically came to an end as back as in 1979 and they were no more in service at the time of adjudication of dispute in the year 1993. It was further submitted that the adjudicating authority had exceeded in its jurisdiction in ordering that a scheme be framed to absorb the concerned workmen within a period of six months. He has no jurisdiction to pass such an order which is beyond the scope of Section 4 A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further submitted that there was no material on record to establish that the concerned workmen were appointed against any posts and their services were retrenched. There was no material on record even to establish that the workers had completed 240 days of continuous work so adjudicating authority could not have directed reappointment of these workmen by framing of a scheme. It was further submitted that framing of any scheme is an executive function of the U.P. State Electricity Board and opposite party no.2 cannot direct the aforesaid Board to prepare scheme for absorption of such labourers. It was further submitted that the award is wholly arbitrary and erroneous and liable to be quashed.;