- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 6-3-2000 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (2), U. P. , Kanpur (respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) IT appears that the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the effect as to whether removal/deprivation of the petitioner (workman) from work by the employer (respondent No. 1) was improper and/or illegal, and if yes, as to what benefit/relief the peti tioner (workman) was entitled and with what other details. The said reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 406 of 1991. It further appears that in the said Adjudication case, the petitioner (work man) filed Written Statement, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner (workman) was appointed as Foreman (Head Mistri) by the respondent No. 1 (employer) on 29-6-1987 after interview on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1800/-; and that on 7-7-1987, the petitioner (workman) was posted for working on Dehradun-Raipur site by the respondent No. 1 (employer); and that the petitioner (workman) worked at the said place upto 2-2- 1989; and that on 2-2-1989, the respondent No. 1 (employer) directed the petitioner (workman) to report at the Head Office of the estab lishment; and that accordingly the petitioner (workman) presented himself before the Head Office of the establishment, and continued to get his presence recorded at the Head Office upto 6-2-1989; and that on 7-2-1989, the Director of the Estab lishment orally removed the petitioner (workman) from the work.
(3.) IT was, inter alia, further alleged in the said Written Statement filed on behalf of the petitioner (workman) that the respondent No. 1 (employer) neither gave any appointment letter to the petitioner (workman) nor gave any order at the time of removal from work; and that the respondent No. 1 (employer) did not comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while removing the petitioner (workman) from the work. It further appears that Written Statement was filed on behalf of the respon dent No. 1 (employer) in the said Adjudication Case. It was, inter alia, alleged on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (employer) that the establishment of the respon dent No. 1 (employer) was a governmental construction Company, which used to carry on work of construction of buildings and plants on contract; and that the petitioner (workman) was temporarily posted for a fixed period at Dehradun for the construction work which was going on at Dehradun-Raipur site; and that on comple tion of work at Dehradun-Raipur site; full and final payment of salary for the period upto 31 -1 -1989 was made to the petitioner (workman) on 1 -2- 1989; and that the place of accrual of cause of action for the industrial dispute was Dehradun, and, therefore, the Labour Court at Kanpur (respondent No. 2) had no jurisdiction to hear the industrial dispute in question.;