R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner by means of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award of the labour court dated 28.2.1995 notified on 15.6.1995 and set out, in Annexure 5 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief as have been stated in the writ petition, are that Northern Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad, the Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Society). The Society was established for preserving, promoting and developing the art and culture of North Zone under the guidance of the Central Government. Respondent No. 2, Sri Anoop Behari Lai Srivastava was engaged for looking after the cases of the Society pending in various courts on daily wage basis. From 1.9.1990, the said Respondent ceased to discharge his duties and abandoned the job. On the behest of the said Respondent, the State Government Under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), made a reference to decide the question as to whether the employer's act of terminating the services of Sri An up Behari Lal Srivastava as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 26.12.1990 was proper and legal and if not, to what compensation/relief the workman was entitled from the employer. Before the labour court, Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement and claimed that he was appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 20.3.1988 on daily wage basis @ Rs. 50 per day. He was required to do pairvi of the cases, make purchases of goods of the Society, maintain bills submitted by the contractors and to per for in other jobs. After working for about 2 years in the aforesaid capacity, he applied for leave as he wanted to appear in Civil Services Examination, 1990. Leave was granted to him from 1.9.1990 to 10.11.1990 but since the examination could not be held and was postponed, he had to apply for leave again, twice. After appearing in the aforesaid examination when he reported for duty on 26.12.1990, he was not permitted to join. On 3.1.1991, the Director of the Society told him that his services stood terminal. Respondent No. 2 claimed that the termination of his services was wholly illegal and in violation of provisions of Section 6H of the Act.
(3.) SIMILARLY the Petitioner also filed written statement pleading that Respondent No. 2 was never appointed as Upper Division Clerk. He was appointed as a Daily Wager only to look after the cases of the Society pending In different courts, that he has himself abandoned the service of the Society and that reference made to the Labour Court was Incompetent. .;