- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This is an employer's writ petition against prelimi nary award dated 24-8-1981 of the In dustrial Tribunal (V) U,p. Meerut on cer tain issues decided as preliminary issues.
(2.) ON cessation of the employment of the respondent No. 3, with petitioner, the respondent No. 3 sought to raise an in dustrial dispute. The State Government initially by its order dated 7-1- 1978 refused" to refer the said dispute. ON the respondent again approaching the State Government , the said Government declined to give reference by its order dated 29-7-1978. ON yet another repre sentation being made by the respondent, however, the State Government vide its order dated 3- 10-1978 made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal of the question as to whether the termination of the respondent's services by the employer was proper and valid and if not to what benefits/compensation, the respondent employee was entitled. Before the tribunal the case of the respondent No. 3 was that he was ap pointed as general worker in the produc tion department of the petitioner's estab lishment but in order to deprive benefit of 240 days continuous service, artificial breaks were created and fresh appoint ments were made every year. From 30-12-1976 to 21-3-1977, the petitioner remained under medical treatment due to accidential injury while performing duty, at the expense of the employers, but he was not put back on duty and was informed that his services have been terminated w. e. f. 31-12-1976, the said termination is illegal and unsustainable. The case set up on behalf of the employer on the other hand was that, the petitioner was for the first time employed for a fixed term of one month on 1-9-1976 and his services were extended in three instalments upto 31-12-1996, and came to an end by efflux of time w. e. f, 31-12-1996, and there is no question of any termina tion or retrenchment. It was further con tended that reference order of the State Government is against law and violative of principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE tribunal on the above pleas of the parties framed as many as 11 issues. Out of it following four issues were taken up as preliminary issues. Issue No. 1. Did the State Government declare that it was not expedient to refer the mat ter in dispute for adjudication? If so, is the order of reference bad in law? Issue No. 2. Has the burden of proof been placed wrongly on the employers in the order of reference? Issue No. 10. Whether the services of Shri Ashok Kumar automatically came to an end on the expiry of the stipulated period of his employment ? If so, marked its effect? Issue No. 11. Whether the said automatic cessa tion, if any, of the workman's services falls outside the purview of the Industrial Dis putes Act, particularly Section 2-A there of. If so, its effect? The tribunal in its preliminary award held that the State Government was empowered to refer the matter in dispute for adjudication even after refusal to do so and the reference cannot be assailed. The burden to prove that the service has validly been terminated has rightly been placed on the employer, that the cessation of employment of workman comes under the definition 'retrenchment' and does not fall outside the purview of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act. It is these findings which are assailed by the petitioner-employer.;