- (1.) Heard Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed belatedly challenging the impugned award dated 26th November, 2013 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 31/2011 and the orders dated 12th December, 2007 and 17th October, 2012 passed by the Respondent no.1.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award has been passed without compliance of the provision of Section 5-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), inasmuch as, the application of the petitioner for summoning witnesses was not allowed. The enquiry is wholly valid, and therefore, respondent no. 1 was not justified in passing the impugned award. The respondent no. 2 himself refused to take assistance of any co-workman. The request of the respondent no.2 for being represented through an outsider Sri I.R. Hamilton, was not allowable as per Clause 16(e) of the standing order which provides that the workman shall be entitled to be represented by a co-workman of the establishment and will not have any right to be assisted by an outsider. He submits that principles of natural justice have been followed, as evident from cross examination of the workman. He submits that the respondent no. 2 himself did not cross examine the witnesses of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners are ready to comply with the order to reinstate the respondent no. 2, but despite the letter ( Annexure 28) and the letter dated 27th January, 2015 ( Annexure No. 29), the respondent no. 2 did not join the duties. He submits that the respondent no. 2 is merely interested in extracting money from the petitioner's management and for that reason, he is not joining, although petitioners are ready to comply with the award. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments : - (i) Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Devishanker Kumar Shukla, 2000 1 LLJ 531, (ii) Saran Motors Private Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Vishwanath and another,1964 9 FLR 7, (iii) Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, 1993 1 LLJ 907(para 11) , (iv) State Bank of India and others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, 2013 136 FLR 704.;