Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. - (1.) Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 17.9.2015 passed by learned single judge in WP(S/S) No.4239 of 2004, Mata Prasad v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited and Others wherein the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition. Appeal was admitted on 28.10.2015 on limited issue. Order dated 28.10.2015 is as under:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admit. The appellant has come up questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th September 2015 on several grounds. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal on two of the grounds namely the impact of the Labour Court award against the appellant and secondly the benefits arising out the judgment dated 15th July, 1993 in the case of Vineet Kumar Srivastava & others v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation & others, W.P. No. 5319(SS) of 1991. Learned counsel for the Bridge Corporation has rightly pointed out that Clause 9 of the scheme as formulated by the High Court in the said judgment does not entitle the petitioner to claim re-engagement. However, we find from the pleadings and that has been noticed by a learned Single Judge that the appellant had raised a third claim relating to engagement of persons who were junior to the appellant and they were being retained and reengaged. This issue has been noticed by the learned Single Judge but has not been answered. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to the Paragraph 5 of the writ petition as well as his reply in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the respondent and Paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit to contend that this issue required adjudication even if the other grounds raised by the appellant were not available. Prima facie, we do not find any finding having been recorded by the learned Single Judge on this issue. Learned counsel for the Bridge Corporation, if he so chooses, file an appropriate affidavit confined to this issue only, explaining categorically as to in what manner those persons who have been referred to by the appellant in the aforesaid paragraphs have been engaged and in what capacity in preference to the appellant as the contention of the appellant is that Article 14 has been violated. The affidavit be filed within three weeks. The appeal shall come up after three weeks for disposal. No grounds for stay is made out. The prayer for stay is rejected.
(2.) Factual matrix of the case shows that the petitioner was engaged as a helper (Gr.D) w.e.f. 01.11.1984 in U.P. Stage Bridge Corporation. Since then petitioner was continuously working on daily wages till 01.8.1986. He was retrenched w.e.f. 01.8.1986 without giving any notice of retrenchment, although the work was available. Juniors to the petitioner namely Aslam, Abu shah, Puranmasi and Iqbal etc were retained.
(3.) A writ petition no.5358 of 1993 was filed by petitioner for quashing the impugned award dated 21.8.1991 passed by Industrial Tribunal - II Lucknow and to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 01.8.1986. Benefit of judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.5319 (S/S) of 1991, Vineet Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation and Others, decided on 15.7.1993, was claimed wherein a scheme was formulated by the Court. W.P. No.5358 of 1993 was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2004. Opposite parties were directed to consider the case of petitioner in the light of judgment in Vineet Kumar Case. Opposite party did not give the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he has accepted the retrenchment compensation. Rule 16 of the Industrial Dispute Rules was violated. Juniors to the petitioner were retained.;