- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, advocate, holding brief of Sri W. H. Khan, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth, counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed arising out of the award dated 4. 9. 2000 (published on 21. 5. 2001), passed by the Labour Court-II, U. P. , Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 243 of 1994. The undisputed facts of the case are that the workman respondent was engaged as a daily-wager in the petitioners' establishment during the span of period 16. 12. 1990 to 30. 9. 1991. The workman was disengaged w. e. f. 30. 9. 1991. Aggrieved by his disengagement, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was registered as C. P. Case No; 76/92. The conciliation proceedings between the employer and the employees having failed, the following matter of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in exercise of power under Section 4k by the State Government was referred to the Labour Court-II U. P. , Ghaziabad where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 243/94.
(3.) THE case of the workman before the labour court was that during the aforesaid span of his working during 16. 12. 1990 to 30. 9. 1991, he had worked for 260 days continuously in the establishment of the employers and that he had been disengaged without compliance of Section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, whereas the case of the employer before the labour court was that workmen though admittedly had worked for the aforesaid period as claimed by him but he had not continuously worked for 240 days or more, as such, provisions of Section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. The parties led oral evidence before the labour court but no documentary evidence was filed by either of the parties in support of their case regarding actual working of continuous service by the workman.;