- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the Award dated 19. 12. 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of its being perverse.
(2.) SRI Sudhir Chandra Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the workman was employed on 1. 6. 1975 in the muster roll as daily wage and continued to be a muster roll worker on daily wage with intervention from time to time till 22. 7. 1978 when his services were terminated. The workmen did not question or challenge the said order of termination. On the other hand he had applied for re-employment. Pursuant to such an application by a letter dated 23. 11. 1978 which is annexure '10' to the writ petition (Ext. 4), the workman was directed to be re-employed and accordingly he was re-employed in December, 1978 and he worked till 31. 1. 1979 upon such re-employment. His services were dispensed with on account of a Circular dated 17. 1. 1979 by which the muster roll daily wage workmen's services were to be dispensed with. Respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute on account of his termination on the ground that the said termination is illegal on account of violation of Section 6 N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly a reference was made, pursuant to which Adjudication case No. 126 of 1981 was registered before the learned Labour Court, Gorakhpur. The said dispute has ultimately ended in the impugned Award dated 19. 12. 1984 by which the workman was reinstated upon a finding that the termination of the service was bad on account of non-compliance of Section 6 N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Art ).
(3.) SRI Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners contends first that since the engagement of the workman was terminated on 22. 7. 1978 and he was re-employed in December, 1978 pursuant to his application, therefore, the workman having accepted the termination on 22. 7. 1978 was estopped from challenging the same particularly when he had accepted re-employment and thus the period of his engagement should be granted from the date of re-employment and his earlier engagement should be ignored.;