- (1.) PETITIONER by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india has challenged the award dated 23-9-1996 passed by the Labour Court, IV, U. P. , Kanpur in adjudication Case No. 102 of 1995. The State government by the order dated 27 March, 1995 has referred the following dispute under section 4k of UP. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act' ). "whether the termination of the services of Sri ashok Kumar Soni by the employers with effect from 20-12-1993 is justified or legal? If not, concerned workman is entitled to what benefit/relief?"
(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court the parties have exchanged the pleadings. The case set up by the workman in his written statement is that the workman concerned was working since 1991 with the employer-petitioner on the post of Work Supervisor on daily wages and since then he is continuously working. That the appointment of the workman was with the approval of the higher authorities and the workman was performing all the duties as and when assigned to him. He was supervising the labourers under the control of the Junior Engineer and used to maintain the records. That there was no complaint regarding work and conduct of the workman and he was paid Rs. 540 per month on daily wages. It was only when the workman concerned requested the employer to regularize his services, he was asked to cease from work with effect from 20th December, 1993.
(3.) THE case set up by the employer was that the workman was engaged on a project known as shahjad Nadi for construction of repet and Mausra khurd Check-dam and he is being paid wages on daily basis. It is incorrect to say he has been continuously working. It is also incorrect that the workman has been issued any letter of appointment. The employer had given the details of the work done by the workman since 1st December, 1991 till 20th December, 1993. It is also alleged by the employer that the workman is paid wages only for the days when he worked. The project, for which he was engaged, is now complete and department has no concerned with the aforesaid project. He was not engaged on regular basis and it is therefore, said that in fact after the completion of the 'project his services shall come to an end as there was no work. He was engaged on muster roll basis. It is also stated that the cession of the employment of the workman does not contravene any of the provisions of law and further he is not entitled for regularization as prayed for.;