- (1.) Heard Shri S.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Daily Wager Employee on 7.12.1980 on the post of Maali in Mohali Unit of Sitapur. By order dated 20.2.1990, his services were orally terminated.
(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the labour dispute has been arisen between the parties and the matter has come up before the Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in I.D. Case No. 171 of 1992. Labour Court has passed an award dated 1.11.1994, relevant portion of the same quoted herein below:--
(3.) An award dated 1.11.1994 passed by Labour Court was challenged by the official respondent/Dy. Director Avadh Forest Division by filing Writ Petition No. 2163 (SS) of 1995, dismissed by order dated 10.12.2010 passed by this Court, which on reproduction reads as under:-- "C.M. Application No. 125412 of 2010. This is an application for correction/modification of order dated 22.9.2010 passed by this Court. Heard. Cause sufficient. The application is allowed. The order dated 22.9.2010 is corrected. The corrected order is reproduced as under:-- This is a matter expedited by Hon'ble Single Judge within two months. The learned Standing Counsel has argued that the award dated 1.11.1994 impugned as Annexure No. 1 is not based on correct appreciation of facts. The petitioner was not a regular employee and the termination of the petitioner was valid and legal. The petitioner was working on the post of 'Mali' in the Maholi Unit of Sitapur. He has further argued that petitioner had not completed 240 days in a year hence the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the petitioner. Counsel for the opposite party has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 5 of the award in which it has been clearly mentioned that sufficient time was granted to the opposite party to produce the muster-roll which they did not bring before the Court. According to the Exhibit w-10 which was a certificate given by the Divisional Forest officer it was proved that the petitioner had definitely worked till February 1989. The petitioner had completed 353 days, as such, he had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to have given him a notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof but nothing was done. The petitioner also established that the opposite parties had appointed one Rajneesh Kumar Pandey in his place. This fact could not be denied by the opposite parties by their written statement filed before the labour Court. The appointment of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey further proves that there was work available and it can not be said that work of the department had come to an end. The case law cited by the employers was also successfully distinguished by the labour Court. After going through the order of the Industrial Tribunal I come to the definite conclusion that there is no illegality in the award, therefore, the award is upheld. The writ petition is dismissed. Any interim order against the respondent No. 1 is vacated. Necessary consequences to follow.";