- (1.) HEARD Sri V. B. Misra in the first, second and last writ petitions for the petitioner, Sri V. K. Rai learned Counsel for the petitioner in the third writ petition and Sri A. N. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner in the fourth writ petition and Sri S. K. Misra learned Counsel for the workman-respondent in the first four writ petitions. In the last writ petition no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent even though the name of his learned Counsel Sri Kushal Kant and Sri Chandeshwar Prasad who had appeared on the admission stage on his behalf were printed in the cause list.
(2.) THE common question involved in all these five writ petitions is as whether Labour Court has got power of review or not. To put it in other words the. question of interpretation of section 6 (6) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is involved. Under the. said section Labour Court has got jurisdiction to correct any clerical or arithmetical errors in the awards or the errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Whether this provision confers power of review upon the Labour Court and if so to what extent. However, facts of each case different which are given below. First Writ Petition
(3.) PRESIDING Officer, Labour Court U. P. Varanasi in Adjudication case No. 103 of 1995 decided on 9-1-1997 held that the workman-respondent had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, hence, he was not entitled to the protection of section 6n of U. P. I. D Act. Accordingly it was held that action of petitioner employer terminating the services of respondent-workman with effect from 29-9-1993 from the post of Chaukidar was valid and workman was not entitled to any relief. (Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 22-8-1990 and his services were terminated on 10-6-1991, thereafter, the workman was taken back in service due to stay order passed in his writ petition. After dismissal of the writ petition workman was removed on 29-9-1993. Along with termination letter dated 9-6-1991 one month's wages and further compensation of Rs. 345 was also paid/offered. Thereafter, review application under section 6 (6) of U. P. I. D Act was filed which was allowed by the labour Court on 8-1-1998 which order is challenged through the first writ petition. In the order dated 8-1-1998, it was held that the Presiding Officer in the earlier award had committed legal mistake in holding that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Labour Court held that after addition of section 25b (2) in the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), it was not necessary that 240 days should have been completed in a calendar year and the only requirement was that only 240 days of total service should have been completed. Through the said order earlier award was set-aside and matter was posted for future date for hearing on merit in order to give fresh award. Second Writ Petition;