Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Amit Singh and Shri Sheshadri Trivedi, holding brief of Shri Sameer Sharma for respondent No. 2 and 3. This is a workman's petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 13.12.1996 passed in Adjudication Case No. 62 of 1995 and also an order dated 27.3.98 passed by the respondent No. 1 on an application named by the petitioner to rectify the award under the provisions of Section 66 of the U.P.I.D. Act. The order of reference reads this: KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA SRAMIK SHIVANATH PUTRA SRI CHABBA PASSI, BHOOTHPOORV PARICHALAK, JHANSI DEPO KO ADESH DINAK 15.11.74 DWARA KARYA SE RRATHIK/KIYA JANA UCHITH EVAM VADHANIK HAI? YADI NAHIN TO SAMBANDHIT SRAMIK KYA HITLABH/KSHATHIPOORTHI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI? KIS TITHI EVAM ANYA KIS VIVARAN KE SATH?
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 28.4.1970 and he worked there till 14.11.74. It is admitted to the petitioner workman that he was working as temporary conductor and seniority list of such conductors had been prepared on 15.11.1974. The services of the workman were dispensed with and he was told that as and when need arises, he will be engaged and he will be given employment. It is stated by the petitioner workman that seniority list was published on 25.1.92 by which, he came to know that persons junior to him have been engaged and given regular appointment as conductor in the respondent Corporation.
(3.) The petitioner, then sought a reference in the year 1995 in which, he claimed that he had been retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act as persons junior to him had been given employment. The workman also claimed that the provisions of Sections 6F and 6Q of the U.P.I.D. Act had been violated and he was entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits.;