D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) In this case the petitioner has challenged the award dated September 2, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (1), U.P., Allahabad, by which the Respondent No. 3 was directed to be reinstated in service with half wages.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the Respondent No. 3 was included in the select list from which he alongwith others used to be appointed in short term vacancy as Conductor Driver from time to time by U.P. Roadways which is a Government Department w.e.f. June 1, 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation) when the State Government incorporated the petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 and others whose names appeared in the select list were being given short term employment against short term vacancy whenever it arose. The Respondent No. 3 was appointed for a fixed period on temporary basis from May 1, 1973 to May 31, 1973 and thereafter from August 1, 1975 to August 31, 1975 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It appears from the Annexure-1 to the writ petition that he was given appointment against short term vacancy. His service was terminated by an order dated August 30, 1975 with one month's pay in lieu of notice which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner the Respondent No. 3 had raised this dispute in 1982 which was rejected and was not referred by the State Government as this dispute was raised after lapse of seven years. Thereafter he again raised dispute in 1990 after lapse of 8 years and this time on the report of Regional Conciliation Officer the State Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) who allowed the claim of Respondent No. 3 and directed the petitioner to reinstate with half back wages till reinstatement.
(3.) Shri S.K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in view of the earlier refusal to make reference subsequent reference was barred by principle of res judicata. Secondly he contends that the petitioner being temporary employee and his service having been terminated, no dispute can be entertained on such discharge. Third point raised by Shri Sharma is that employees of the U.P. Roadways were serving with petitioner Corporation on deputation remained State Government employees and there was no relation of employer and employee between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 and such dispute cannot be raised in between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3. In support of his contention he relies on the judgment reported in the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (1980-II-LLJ-48) (All). He also relied on the case of Miss A. Sunderambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, (1989-I-LLJ-61) (SC).;