- (1.) RAKESH Sharma 1. Heard Dr. R. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner who has sought review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8594 (S/S) of 1990 on October 15, 2004.
(2.) IT emerges from record that the petitioner was engaged under Regulation 5 (3) of U. P. Co -operative Services Rules, 1975. Under this provision, ad hoc temporary appointments are made for a stipulated period. The petitioner's services were terminated on 16.6.1980. Being aggrieved against the order of termination, a reference was made to the learned labour court at the instance of a bunch of employees. The following reference was made to the labour court for adjudication: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The Labour Court, Lucknow vide order dated 4.12.1989 has answered the reference as follows: Since the workman was not given retrenchment relief as envisaged under Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his termination w.e.f. 16.6.1980 cannot be said to be legal and justified. Since Sri Surya Prasad Tripathi was employed in the same capacity on 8.8.1989 he is entitled to get full wages for the period from 17.6.1980 to 7.8.1983. I therefore, hold that the termination of service of Sri Surya Prasad Tripathi son of Sri Shambhu Dayal Tripathi w.e.f. 16.6.1980 is not legal and justified. He is entitled to get full wages for the period from 17.7.1980 to 7.8.1983. Since he was employed on 8.8.1983 to same capacity he is not entitled to get relief beyond 7.8.1983. The workman will also get Rs. 50 as costs from the employers. I make my award accordingly.
(3.) THIS Court after going through the material on record had dismissed the writ petition with the observation that it is open to the petitioner of W.P. No. 8594 (SS) of 1990, to approach the labour court in accordance with law if he feels any grievance about the fresh cause of action of the opposite parties.;