- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or di rection in the nature of certiorari of this Court for calling for the record of the case and quashing the impugned award dated 30- 08-1998 passed by the La bour Court Haldwani, which was pub lished on the notice board on. 11-10- 1999 in Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1991 (Annexure No. 1) in so far as it has denied the petitioner of her back wages for the period she was kept out of em ployment, i. e. w. e. f. 7-11-1989 till the date of award.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was ap pointed as hand receipt clerk by the re spondent nos. 2 and 3 on 24-8-1987 and her work and conduct was satisfac tory. She worked continuously till 7-11-1989, when her services were termi nated without any reason or prior no tice. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to by the Government under Section 4 (K) of the U. P. Industrial Dis putes Act in the following terms: "whether the termination of services of lady workman Smt. Geeta Adhikari w/o Sri Ganga Singh Adhikari, hand receipt clerk by the employers from 7-11-89 is justified and/or legal? If no, to which ben efit/relief the concerned workman is entitled and to what extent? Notice was issued to the em ployer as well as the workman lady. The lady worker filed her affidavit stat ing therein that she was employed on 24-8-1987 as hand receipt clerk by the employer and till the date of her termi nation she worked continuously and to the satisfaction of the employer. On 7-11- 1989, her services were terminated illegally without any prior notice. She requested for her reinstatement but to no avail. It was also asserted that she had worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding the date of ter mination of her service and that the ter mination against her was entirely ille gal and unjustified. In reply the employer filed its written statement alleging therein that the petitioner was neither given any ap pointment letter nor there is any ques tion of issue of termination order against her. It was stated that no such post ever existed with the nomenclature "hand receipt clerk". It was however stated that the lady workman was employed only on daily wages on account of shortage of staff and stand taken up by the petitioner is imaginary just to suit her claim. It was said that authority of appointment on the clerical post is vested with the Corporation. On these grounds the case was resisted from the side of the employers.
(3.) BEFORE the respondent no. 1, be sides the written statement and rejoin der affidavit, oral evidence led by the parties was record. The learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties and considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the termination of the lady workman/peti tioner was illegal and improper. Accord ingly, by the impugned order dated 30-8-1995, while passing order of rein statement of the petitioner, it was or dered that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the period she was kept out of employment and from the date of decision, she shall be entitled to the treated in the employ ment as daily wager clerk and shall be entitled to appear in the departmental test for regular employment. Feeling ag grieved, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to her back wages is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as when the Labour Court directed reinstate ment of the petitioner, she became en titled for full back wages, as has been held by the Apex Court in several cases. Learned counsel for the peti tioner further contended that the re spondent no. 1 has given no justifiable reasons to deny the back wages to the petitioner particularly when the learned court below directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of serv ice.;