- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and its Project Manager against U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Karamchari Sangh (Workers Union) and Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Allahabad. The first writ petition is directed against award dated 27-11-1990 given by the Industrial Tribunal (I) U. P. Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 77 of 1988. The matter which was referred was to the effect that as to whether the employer shall declare 7 of its employees whose names were given in the schedule attached with the reference as permanent. Through the impugned award, Labour Court directed that one of the employees Surendra Kumar Shukla was entitled to permanent status with effect from 20-3-1984 and the other employee Budhi Ram with effect from 1-12- 1984 and from the said dates they should be placed in the graded scale of pay and entitled to all the benefits to which permanent employees doing similar work were entitled. It was further held that they were also entitled to all allowances and future revision of pay scale etc. as admissible to similarly situate employees. The given dates were the dates on which the two employees completed three years services. It is mentioned in the award that the cases of the other five workmen were not pressed. The second writ petition is directed against award dated 20-8-1991 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I) U. P Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 11 of 1989. The matter which was referred was as to whether action of the employer of not declaring 7 employees (mentioned in the schedule annexed with the reference) permanent was valid or not. This was another set of seven employees distinct from the employees whose cases were referred through the award challenged in the first writ petition. The presiding officer through the impugned award directed that all the seven workman should be deemed to have been confirmed from the dates on which they completed three years of their service. Third writ petition is directed against award dated 24-2-1992 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I) U. P. Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 46 of 1989. The matter which was referred was as to whether the action of the employer of not confirming 28 employees whose names were given in the schedule annexed with the reference and not giving all the benefits available to permanent employees was proper or not. The Labour Court directed that the 22 workmen should stand confirmed with effect from the dates on which they completed three years of their continuous service and they would be entitled to all benefits consequent upon the said direction. Six workmen out of 28 whose cases were referred had left the service hence no direction was given in respect of them.
(3.) IN respect of 22 employees made permanent through award impugned in the third writ petition, it has been stated that six workmen have left the job in 1995 and one has retired and one has died. Learned Counsel for the petitioner employer stated that since 1994 all the concerned employees have been placed in the pay scale and are being paid salary in accordance therewith and it has also been directed that they will not be removed until they reach the age of superannuation (of course unless there is some charge of misconduct against them and they are found guilty in enquiry ). Copy of Government Order dated 2-7-1994 has been placed on record through which 1005 work charge/muster roll employees have been regularised. Admittedly all the concerned workmen in these writ petitions are included in those 1005 employees. Regularisation order already passed by the competent authority in proper way i. e. by framing rules or issuing Government Orders is not hit by the Constitution Bench Authority of Uma Devi (para 44) (Op. cit ). The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 1806, has held that Court cannot pass order of regularisation of an employee. Sri K. P. Agarwal learned senior Counsel for the workmen in these writ petitions has firstly contended that the said Constitution Bench Authority does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration. This argument cannot be considered by the High Court; it can only be raised before the Supreme Court.;