- (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as under :- (i) Petitioners is a department of the State Government and is engaged in developing and maintaining irrigation facilities. (ii) Services of the employees of the petitioner's department are governed by the statutory Rules. (iii) There is no certified standing order applicable to workmen of the petitioner's department and as such the question of applicability of Section 13-A of the Industrial ( Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or the provision of Section 11- C of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 do not arises at all. (iv) The respondent no. 2 workmen were engaged on daily wage basis in case of need of extra hands to meet the requirement of extra work. There is no scheme of regularization. (v) The impugned order dated 7.1.2009 passed by the respondent no.1 in Miscellaneous Case No. 20/2008 directing for regularization of respondent no. 2 workmen as per list annexed ( 18 workmen) is wholly without authority of law and beyond the scope of Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. (vi) The alleged regularization orders in compliance to the impugned award were not issued by the petitioners. The operation of the impugned award dated 7.1.2009 was stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 3.11.2009 and as such in any circumstances, the alleged orders filed as Annexure No. SCA-4, SCA-5 and SCA-6 by the respondent no. 2 is of no consequence. He further submits that even if any order has been procured or manipulated by some person illegally, the same cannot made basis to obtain a relief. Illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. (vii) Without prejudice to the above neither any appointment letters were issued to the respondent no. 2 nor they produced any appointment letters as there were merely daily wager engaged in need of extra hands and as such the impugned award could not have been passed. The question of applicability of any standing order does not arise at all under the facts and circumstances of the case. No standing order could be produced by the respondent no. 2 which may be said to be applicable to the petitioners under the facts and circumstances of the case. No appointment letters could be produced by the respondent no. 2 in terms of Clause -4 of the U.P. Industrial Employment Order ( Standing Order), 1991 which necessarily requires the mentioning of the standing order in the appointment letter itself.
(3.) In support of his submissions, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Karamchari Union, 2007 10 SCC 758 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2005 104 FLR 834 para 14.;