- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned award dated 23.6.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Betiahata, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Dispute No. 234 of 89. By the impugned award, the labour court has directed reinstatement of Nathu Ram Singh, respondent No. 3 along with back wages. The facts in brief are that the petitioner Sugar Mill is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Delhi. The company has a manufacturing unit at Basti which is engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar by vacuum pan process. Respondent No. 3 was engaged by the petitioner as a Cane Development Supervisor on 13.2.1988. The petitioner claims that the respondent-workman was a "trainee supervisor" on probation appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 900 per month whereas the respondent-workman claims that he was appointed as "Cane Development Supervisor". Since the whole dispute centres around the nature of duties it would be necessary to reproduce the letter of offer of appointment dated 5.2.1988, which is as under : "P/3605 5.2.1988 Appointment Advice Shri Nathu Ram Singh, Cane Supervisor, Saraya Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Sardar Nagar, District Gorakhpur With reference to your application and subsequent interview held on 25.1.1988, we are pleased to inform you that you have been selected for the post of Development Supervisor on the term and condition settled with you. A formal appointment letter will be issued to you after you join us. Please let us know the tentative date of your joining per return. Sd. illegible General Manager"
(3.) IT appears from the record that the work of respondent No. 3 was not found satisfactory and his services were terminated. Aggrieved, respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as C.B. Case No. 10/89. Since no amicable settlement could be arrived at during the conciliation proceedings, the following matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 234 of 89 : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The case of respondent No. 3 was that from a bare perusal of the letter of offer for appointment it is crystal clear that he was selected on the post of "Cane Development Supervisor" and a formal appointment letter was to be issued which in fact was never issued and that it is also evident from the letter dated 5.2.1988 that he was neither a trainee nor was on probation but his appointment was permanent.;