- (1.) Heard Sri Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri S.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 12.2.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 120/2004. By the impugned award, the respondent No. 2 has been directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the alleged date of termination i.e. 15.9.2003.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire award is based merely on forged and fabricated piece of papers, namely, alleged log sheet which does not bears signature of any officers of the petitioners and a manipulated piece of papers dated 7.8.2001, in which the respondent No. 2 has been shown as doing duty at Pump House, Theknar. He submits that no evidence could be filed by the respondent No. 2 to establish that he was ever employee of the petitioners. He submits that the fact is that no appointment or engagement of any kind was made by the department after the year 1995. The allegation of the respondent No. 2 that he was appointed as Pump Operator on 1.5.2001 is wholly false, baseless and without any evidence on record. During the period 1998 to 2002 contract for operating the Pump House were given after due advertisement to one M/s. Banke Bihari Ji Plumber and Sanitary Works, Krishna Nagar, Mathura thereafter the contract was given for the year 2002 and 2003 to M/s. National Pump Corporation, Bhuteshwar Road, Dwarka Puri, Mathura after due advertisement. In June, 2003 the contract was given to M/s. M.D. Enterprises, he submits that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. The entire award is based on surmises and conjuncture.
(3.) Learned counsel fort the respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned award has been passed in accordance with law. He relied upon the logbook dated 1.6.2001 of fifteen days from 16th to 31st day of the month, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit. He submits that this logbook bear the signature of the respondent No. 2 and another person Sri Mohan Saini. He also relied upon a paper dated 7.8.2001 filed alongwith the counter-affidavit, in which the name of the respondent No. 2 finds mentioned at serial No. 3. He submits that the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioners but his service was terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation and in breach of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and as such the impugned award has been lawfully passed directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 3 in service with 50% back wages.;