- (1.) SHAILENDRA Saksena, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the (Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and mandamus for quashing the part of the Award dated 15-1-1991, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 of the petition and for direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and pay with interest.
(2.) BRIEF facts so far they are relevant for decision of this writ are that petitioner was working on the post of clerk on daily wages since 28-1-1984 and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. Without complying with the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and he was retrenched, but before retrenchment neither written one month's notice was given nor any compensation as required under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was paid to the petitioner nor procedure laid down for retrenchment was followed. The matter was referred to the industrial Tribunal (respondent No. 3), who gave its Award on 15-1- 1991, copy of the Award has been filed as Annexure-1 of the petition. The Industrial Tribunal in its Award found that at the time of retrenchment dated 19-12-1988, provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with, so the retrenchment order dated 19-12-1988 was illegal and void and his services could not have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) THE Tribunal further had directed that one month's pay in lieu of written notice and compensation on the basis of the total service rendered by the petitioner would be given. The petitioner has challenged this part of the Award and in this connection it has been said that once it has been held that retrenchment order dated 19-12-1988 is illegal and against the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the only course which was left was to order reinstatement, the Tribunal had no powers to order for rectification of the lapses, notice of retrenchment should have been given by the employer in accordance with law, which could have been affective only after expiry of statutory period and, not with effect from 19-12-1988 i. e. the date, on which a termination order was passed. The petitioner had a right to be reinstated from 19-12-1988 with full back wages, he should have been treated to be in continuous service in between 19-12-1988 to the date of retrenchment and till this date services were not terminated in accordance with law. The Scheme in which petitioner was employed still continues and it has not been abolished.;