D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged and the learned Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award of the labour Court dated 27 -1 -1997 by which the claim of the respondent workman has been accepted and his termination has been held to be against the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a direction has been issued for his reinstatement with full backwages. Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that the respondent -workman approached the Conciliation Officer with the allegation that he has been working since July, 1978 in the Forest Department but without any reason or complying with the provisions of the Act, his services were dispensed with on 1 -11 -1992. Upon a failure report a reference under Section 4 -K of the Act was made to the Labour Court, Ghazipur, which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 72 of 1995. Upon issuance of notice written statement on behalf of the petitioner and workman were filed. The case as set up by the petitioner was that the workman was employed on daily wage basis for additional work and he has not completed 240 days in the last 12 calendar months. Apart from the aforesaid pleadings, no other document or record was produced or filed by the petitioner before the labour Court. On behalf of the workman certificate of employment from July, 1983 to August, 1983, from September, 1986 to July, 1987, and from August, 1988 to 31st October, 1992 were filed alongwith his affidavit. On the application of the workman, the petitioner produced the pay -sheets from 11 -11 -1991 to October, 1992 which showed that the workman had continuously worked from November, 1991 to October, 1992. The labour Court recorded categorical findings that the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in the last 12 calendar months and thus it held that the termination without complying with the provisions of Section 6 -N etc. was illegal and it accepted the claim of the workman directing reinstatement and backwages vide the impugned award.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the Deputy Labour Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, as the power vests only with the State Government. Though, this point was never urged before the labour Court as is evident from the ward while the copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner has not been made part of this writ petition, nevertheless, since it is purely a legal question it has to be considered.;