- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the re spondents as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) U. P. Jal Nigam is a body corporate established under the provisions of U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The main function of the U. P. Jal Nigam is to execute projects under various schemes in regard to water supply and sew erage, sponsored by State Government of any other local body or institution. After completion of the schemes the projects are handed over to the sponsoring body. The Chairman, U. P. Jal Nigam hereinafter called to as the Nigam by order dated 20. 5. 1991 retrenched surplus muster roll employees engaged in the Nigam on the ground of reduction of work and stringent financial condition. According to the policy framed by the Nigam the strength of surplus muster roll employees in various divisions of the Nigam had to be rationalised by restoring to retrenchment daily wages engaged after 31. 8. 89 in accordance with law as a direct result of shortage of work on account of either completion of work or reduced number of projects suffered by it due to surplus staff and availability of less funds at the relevant time in 1991. Respondent No. 2 the workman concerned who was engaged as daily wager on muster rolls on 1. 4. 1990 was working as Hand Pump Fitter in the office of Junior Engineer, Construction Division of U. P. Jal Nigam, Barkunwa, Mirzapur. He was not engaged thereafter with effect from 22. 6. 1991 by the employer alongwith other employees due to paucity of work and funds as stated earlier. He was retrenched after following the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dis putes Act, 1947 by giving him notice pay in due of one months' and payment of retrenchment compensation etc.
(3.) IT appears that aggrieved by the above action of the managements of re trenchment of payment of workman, the Union of workman filed writ petition No. 18124 of 1991, U. P. Jal Sansthan Mazdoor Union Mirzapur v. Chairman U. P. Jal Nigam and others, in which initially an interim order dated 8. 7. 1991 was granted by the Court. The writ petition aforesaid was dismissed vide order and judgment dated 1. 7. 1994. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by order and judgment dated 13. 5. 1994 as such the order of retrenchment revived. Accordingly the petitioner was again disengaged w. e. f. 1. 7. 1994 as a result of dismissal of the writ petition aforesaid, but was not paid any retrenchment compensation etc as provided un der Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;