S.K. Kishore, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the award dated 16-3-1988 passed by the respondent No 1 in this writ petition where under the said authority held that the order dated 27-9-1985 of termination of his services is neither illegal or arbitrary The petitioner challenged the order of the termination of his services dated 27-9-1985 before the labour court on the ground that it has been made in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. State Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947). The petitioner has completed 240 days service in 12 calendar months proceeding the date of termination but neither he was given one month notice or one month pay in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation. The labour court has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has completed 240 days service and services has been terminated without giving him one month notice or notice pay as well as retrenchment compensations. The petitioner was not granted any relief by {he labour court on the ground that his appointment was not made by the competent authority. The appointment in his case has been made by the Regional Manager whereas at the relevant time the appointing authority for the post of clerk was the Board.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of the termination of the services of the petitioner which has been made in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 is void and inoperative. When the labour court found as fact that the retrenchment provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 the reference should have decided in his favour and an award of reinstatement with full back wages should have been passed. He further argued that even in the case of the petitioner the appointment has been made by an officer who was not competent to make the same then too it is a case of retrenchment and as such the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 have to be complied with before terminating his services The nature of the appointment or the appointment is legal or not relevant in case the concerned workman has completed 240 days service in a calendar year proceeding 12 months and termination of his services could have been made only after making the compliance of the provisions of aforesaid section.
(3.) The learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand has argued that though the Regional Manager was competent to make appointment for three months on the post of clerk but the last appointment which has been made of the petitioner was for a period exceeding three months. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief as his appointment itself was illegal. It has been next argued by the learned counsel for the corporation that the petitioners case is not covered under Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 because his appointment was a fixed term appointment which has come to an end by efflux of time. Such a termination does not fall within the definition of retrenchment He has made reference to the amendment provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Central Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 and argued that though in the State Act the definition of retrenchment has not been amended but there is apparent regency in these two Acts and as such the Central Act will apply in this State also Lastly he argued that even labour court itself has given out an alternative case for awarding of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages looking to the nature of the appointment of the petitioner.;