- (1.) Consequent upon a reference made to it, under section 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, labour court has found that non-engagement of respondent-workman at the start of crushing season 1980-81 w.e.f. 1.12.1980 was illegal and unjustified, and as such, workman has been held entitled to reinstatement along with entire back wages, and reference has been answered accordingly. Thus aggrieved with the award dated 27.2.1985, in adjudication case no.15 of 1982, petitioner-employer has filed present writ petition.
(2.) Petitioner-employer M/s Pratappur Sugar Pvt. Ltd. is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, which is running a sugar mill at Pratappur, District Deoria. During pendency of this writ petition, name of petitioner company has been changed to Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Mill Industries Ltd., Sugar Unit Pratappur, Deoria, and an amendment in the array of parties has also been allowed.
(3.) For running of the sugar mill, petitioner-employers engages workman. Service conditions of workmen thus engaged are governed by standing orders issued under section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent-workman herein alleged that he had been engaged as a seasonal kamdar in the petitioner's establishment during cane crushing season 1969-70 and he worked continuously till 1979-80. In the written statement workman alleged that number of other employees similar to respondent-workman have already been reinstated pursuant to an award in adjudication case no.46 of 1971, and as such, he is also liable to be reinstated. He further stated that since crushing season 1978-79, he was engaged as checker and worked as such till the end of season 1979-80, at the check post, and that his services were always satisfactory. According to respondent-workman, as he had worked for the entire cane crushing season 1979-80, and as such, he was entitled to be called at the start of fresh crushing season 1980-81 on the same post, but this was not done. According to respondent-workman, cane crushing season 1980-81 commenced w.e.f. 1.12.1980 and as he was was allowed to resume work, as such, non-calling of workman at the start of fresh season 1980-81 w.e.f. 1.12.1980 amounted to an illegal termination and he was entitled to be reinstated along with continuity of service and seniority etc. Dispute was, consequently, referred under section 4(k) of the Act on the question as to whether termination of workman w.e.f. 1.12.1980 was legal or not?;