- (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition is the UP Power Corporation Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 30-3-2000 passed in adjudication case No. 3/89 by which the Labour Court has reinstated 19 Workmen with full back-wages.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranjit Saxena and Sri I. P. Srivastava for the respondents and have perused the material, pleadings and evidence which are on record of the case. The facts of the case are that the respondent-workmen raised a claim before the Labour Court that their services have been wrongly terminated. A reference was made by the State Government in respect of 46 workmen on 30-6-1986, the claim as raised by the workmen was that their services have been wrongly terminated and in violation of the provisions of section 6n of the U. P. industrial Disputes Act. The order of reference is on record arising out of conciliation being C. B. case No. 88 of 1986. The order of reference reads as herein below. "kya SEVAYOJKO DWARA PARISISTH MAIN ANKIT 46 SHRAMIKO Kl UNKE NAM KE SAMAKSH T1thiyo SE SEVAIYA SAMAPAT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/athwa VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAIN, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LAB/anutosh (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKAR) HAL TATHA ANYA KIN VIVRANO SAHIT?"
(3.) THE workmen filed their written statement before the Labour Court and in para 5 of the written statement, they stated that the workmen who were in the accompanying list had completed 240 days of service in the U. P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). In para 6 thereafter they mentioned that their services had been brought to an end form the dates mentioned in the list without "giving him any compensation as contemplated under the provisions of section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent-workmen also stated that although their services have been brought to an end, the workmen who were junior to them had been retained in service. This they stated was unfair and illegal and therefore were entitled to be reinstated in service.;