Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the award dated 22,06.2002 of the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Allahabad on a reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 during the period 1.4.1988 to 31.8.1989 without any break as a labour on daily wage basis and has been removed from service after 31.7.1989. The case of the petitioner is that he worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously and therefore, could not be removed from service without following the provisions of Section 6 N and 6 P of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. He submitted that he has given various representations right from the year 1989 in this regard. When the representation was not decided, he filed writ petition No. 150 of 1999 in which direction has been issued by this Court to dispose of the representation. The representation has been decided by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 27th March, 1999 in which, it has been held that the petitioner himself left the job on 1.8.1989. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 23519 of 1999, which has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 18th January, 2000. The petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner who has made the reference to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, Labour Court by the impugned order has held that the petitioner worked for the period 1.4.1988 to 31.8.1989 continuously for more than 240 days, hence his removal without prior notice is not justified. He has been removed from service and has approached the Labour Court after 11 years and has been allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 5000/- and his reinstatement is not found justified.
(3.) Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Shukla and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.;