Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The workman-Avadh Narain Pandey was initially engaged by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan on daily wages on 23.5.1994. On 1.8.1996 the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan disengaged the workman allegedly on the ground that the workman has been absenting himself without information to the employer. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 23 of 1998. On 17.5.1999 the parties entered into a compromise and on such basis the Case No. 23 of 1998 was decided on 1.10.1999. According to the said compromise, the workman was to be allowed to start working again on daily wages but he was not to claim back wages. In terms of the said order/compromise the workman joined duties. However, according to the employer since the workman again started absenting himself frequently from work without information, notice regarding the same was issued to the workman on 11.11.1999 and 15.11.1999 and the said notice was also published in the Newspaper on 31.11.1999/2.12.1999. Thereafter the workman was again disengaged with effect from 24.7.2000, regarding which notice was sent to him alongwith a bank draft of one month's wages, which was received and duly encashed by the workman. Aggrieved by his subsequent disengagement by the employer, the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 87 of 2001. The Labour Court, by the impugned award dated 26.5.2003 passed in the aforesaid case, has directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- as retrenchment compensation. Challenging the said award two writ petitions have been filed, one by the workman being Writ Petition No. 18457 of 2004, Avadh Narain Pandey v. State of U.P. & others and the other by the employer being Writ Petition No. 55965 of 2004, M/s Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. & others . Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same award, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) I have heard Sri Anant Vijai, learned counsel appearing for the workman and Sri D.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the employer in both the writ petitions. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(3.) The finding of the Labour Court is to the effect that the disengagement of the workman for the second time was because the services of the workman were not satisfactory and he had been absenting himself without information to the employer, regarding which the employer had also published a notice in the daily Newspaper. The Labour Court was, however, of the view that the same would not be sufficient ground for discharging him from duties in violation of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, considering the totality of the circumstances and being of the view that the services of the workman were not satisfactory, the Labour Court declined the prayer for reinstatement in service and instead directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- as retrenchment compensation.;