- (1.) JURISDICTION of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for assailing an award passed by the Labour Court, dated 2nd September, 1997, as well as a subsequent order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33 -C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, dated 19.8.2000. The Labour Court by the impugned award has answered reference in favour of workman, and has granted reinstatement alongwith back wages to the workman, on the ground of non -compliance with the provisions of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and other consequential benefits have also been granted. By the subsequent petition, order passed in execution of award by the Labour Court, dated 30.1.2008, has been challenged.
(2.) FACTS in brief, which are not in dispute are that petitioner Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika is a local authority, constituted under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and thus, is an State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The employees, who are engaged by the petitioner are required to be recruited in accordance with the provisions of statutory service regulations, and the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is clearly attracted in the matter of recruitment by the petitioner.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , respondent worker claimed to have been appointed by the petitioner Nagar Nigam on 1.1.1990, on daily wage basis, on muster roll. He continued to remain in such employment. It is alleged that a claim for regularization was raised, by which the employer got annoyed, and his engagement was discontinued w.e.f. 1.1.1992. It is alleged that no retrenchment notice or compensation was paid. The respondent worker, aggrieved by such action of the employer, filed a writ petition No. 11445 of 1992, wherein following orders were passed on 9th April, 1992: - "Meanwhile, if the petitioners' services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, he would be allowed to continue in service, and paid his wages so long as an order of termination/retrenchment is not passed strictly in accordance with the requirements of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act." It is alleged that despite such orders, the workman was not reinstated, and was not paid wages, and when he pressed for relief in terms of the order passed by writ court, then an order of termination was passed on 9th April, 1992. It was stated in the order of termination that since the engagement of respondent workman was after 11.10.1989, therefore, considering the financial constraints and applicable directions, it was no longer possible to retain him in employment, and consequently, his services are being terminated. It was also provided that as the workman has completed working of more than a year, therefore, retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days' working for each completed year of service is payable, which can be collected by him from the office, at any point of time. The worker alleges that no compensation was given, and when he approached the office concerned, he was informed that no such voucher/amount is available for being paid to the workman. Ultimately, before the Labour Court, it was alleged that no compensation amount has been paid, nor the same has been legally tendered to the worker, and therefore, there is complete non -compliance of the provisions of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and consequently, the termination order is bad in law.;