ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) ON 9.7.1980, a reference was made by the State of U.P. to Labour Court, Gorakhpur, under Section 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as to whether termination of services of workman w.e.f. 18.9.1978 is valid or not, which has been answered against the workman, vide award dated 16.11.1984, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) PURSUANT to reference, a written statement was filed by the workman stating that he was working as Peon since August, 1977, and has continued as such till 18.9.1978. It was alleged that various unfair labour practices were being resorted to by the employer, inasmuch as Principal of the institution, wherein he was working, used to take domestic work from him, and he was also required to work as Chawkidar. Grievance of the workman was that without paying any retrenchment compensation, under Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Principal all of a sudden stopped taking work from him w.e.f. 18.9.1978. It was averred that letters were sent to the educational authorities, and thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated on 30th July, 1979. Upon failure of conciliation, reinstatement alongwith back wages was claimed by workman from the employer, before the Labour Court.
(3.) PRINCIPAL of the Degree College, who was the employer herein, filed a written statement categorically admitting engagement of workman, though on temporary basis, and it was alleged that the workman was found removing important documents, whereafter he himself abandoned his work, and despite notices sent to him on 4.10.1978, 9.10.1978 and 18.10.1978, he did not report for joining. It was then submitted that considering the nature of engagement, he was not entitled to any relief. Employer further alleged that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous working, and the provision of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not attracted. Various other pleas including loss of confidence etc. were set up. It was also stated that employer was not surviving an industry, and no industrial dispute came into existence. Labour Court, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, has returned a finding that the workmen was engaged as a temporary employee, and he had voluntarily stopped working w.e.f. 19.9.1978, and in fact, his services were not terminated. Labour Court disbelieved the subsequent alleged letters of the worker, raising his grievance, on the ground that those letters neither had any date nor signatures. After considering the letters of the workman, Labour Court, upon preponderance of probabilities, came to the conclusion that alleged letters of the workman had been prepared, after he was served with notice by the employer, requiring him to report for duty. Labour Court further found that no date of appointment was pleaded in the written statement, and it was merely stated that workman commenced work from August, 1977, and continued to work till 19.8.1978, and in such view of the matter, a specific finding was returned that workman had not completed 240 days of working, which disentitled him to to grant of any retrenchment compensation. It was, however, stated that employer is running an industry. In view of the finding of abandonment, returned by Labour Court, reference has been answered against the workman. Labour Court has also found substance in the plea of loss of confidence, set up by the employer.;