Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the labour court directing the petitioner to keep the workman in a surplus pool w.e.f. 1.1.1993 and to take work from him and also pay him back wages.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the State Government referred a dispute to the labour court for adjudication. THE terms of the reference order was : "Whether the employer was justified in not giving work to the workman inspite of keeping him in the surplus pool as per the settlement dated 13.12.1984, if not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?" Before the labour court, the workman filed his written statement contending that a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Management on 13.12.1984, which was duly registered under Section 6B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. In this settlement, the management was required to keep the workman in a surplus pool and would be absorbed as a substitute against absenteeism on an unskilled job during the crushing season. It was alleged that inspite of the settlement, there was a requirement of work and the petitioner was not given any work and that new persons were employed and that some of the workers mentioned in the settlement were taken in the service. The petitioner also filed their written statement and contended that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan process and that the service conditions of the employees in the Company are governed by the Standing Orders duly notified under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner's contended that the Labour Union was not competent to espouse the cause of the workman nor had any locus standi to refer the dispute. It was further contended that there was no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the workman at any stage and consequently no industrial dispute could be raised or referred under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the settlement was for a period of one year which had now lapsed and, therefore could not be enforced at this stage. Even otherwise, there was a delay of more than 9 years in making a reference, and on this ground, the reference could not be answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman. It was further contended that assuming that the settlement could still be enforced, at best, it only created a right of employment for the workmen and did not entitle him for reinstatement or back wages. The labour court, after considering the evidence on record found that the Union was competent to espouse the cause of the workman and was competent to get the matter referred for adjudication before the labour court. The labour court, further found that the settlement could still be enforced and could be questioned in an Industrial Dispute under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court found that there was no delay on the part of the workman in getting the matter referred for adjudication, inasmuch as, the workman was making an effort to get an employment under the settlement of 1984 and after failing in his attempt that he got the matter referred for adjudication of the dispute. The labour court found that the employers had adopted an unfair labour practice and also found that even though the workman was gainfully employed, the workman was liable to be reinstated with back wages to be given in a graded manner, namely, that the workman was entitled to be paid 25% of the wages from 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1997, 50% wages from 1.1.1998 to 31.1.2000 and 100% wages from 1.1.2001, onwards.
(3.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Km. Sumati Rani Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.;