- (1.) Sri Gvanendra Mani Tripathi has come up in appeal against the iudgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19th February. 1974. dismissing writ petition No. 5209 of 1970. filed bv him.
(2.) The petitioner. Gvanendra Mani Tripathi was working with the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Kanpur Division since April. 1969 as a senior clerk (proof reader). He was an active Trade Union worker and was the Organising Secretary of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Mazdoor Union. He had been declared as Protected Workman under Section 6-E of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 29 of the U. P. Industrial Rules. 1957. Subseauentlv. petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 27th December. 1969. On that date 4 adiudication cases Nos. 89.90. 139 and 140 of 1969. relating to the workmen of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Kanpur Division (hereinafter referred to as emolover) were pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Since before terminating the service of the petitioner the employer did not obtain the Permission of the authortiv before which various adiudication cases were pending as reauired bv Section 6-E (3) the petitioner moved an application under Section 6-F of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 on 28th April. 1970. praying that it be directed that he be reinstated with continuity of service and be paid full wages for the period of his unemployment.
(3.) The prayer made in the aforesaid application was resisted bv the employer who claimed that the petitioner had been discharged from service at the end of his probationary period as it was found that he was not fit to be Confirmed. In such circumstances the provisions of Section 6-E (3) were not applicable more so when the petitioner was not a workman concerned in anv of the disputes relatins to which the 4 adiudication cases were pending before the Industrial Tribunal. It was. therefore not necessary for the employer to obtain the permission of the authority concerned before terminating petitioner's service at the end of the period of probation and the application under Section 6 (F) filed bv the petitioner was not maintainable.;