- (1.) This intra Court Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44256 of 1992, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner - respondent Awadhesh Verma and has ordered that he be reinstated in service and his claim for regularisation be considered by the appellant-opposite parties -Mandi Samiti.
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has approached this court by way of this Special Appeal. We have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner- respondent, and perused the record.
(3.) The background of the case in brief is that petitioner- respondent Awadhesh Verma was appointed as a clerk cum typist on daily wages in the office of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad on 1.8.1987 and continued up to 11.3.1988. Thereafter was appointed from 6.8.1988 to 31.8.1991 in the same office and again on 1.12.1995 he was appointed on Muster Roll in the office of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Shahjahanpur, where he worked till 31.3.1998 but thereafter his services were terminated. The petitioner- respondent filed a writ petition claiming that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year as such his services could not have been dispensed with, without following the procedure of law, prescribed in Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Hence he is entitled for reinstatement in service and also for regularisation. The writ petition filed by the petitioner- respondent was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.1.2000. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without following the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as the Mandi Parishad has been held as an industry and the petitioner is a workman. He relied upon the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 7887 of 1997 (Lucknow Bench) decided on 26.9.1999, in which this court has held that the Mandi Parishad is an industry and the court found vio0lation of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the petitioner of that writ petition reinstated and also directed for regularisation. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed Clerk-Typist on daily wages and has worked for more than 240 days and the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. Section 6N is at par with the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has held that in case an order is passed in violation of under section 25F of the Act, the relationship of master and servant did not snap and the order of termination is void ab initio as has been held in the case of Lal Mohd. And others Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd., 1999 1 SCC 596. In view of the above law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed. The order of termination, if any, is set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in the service and the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.";