SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is a school run by registered society in Jhansi challenging the award dated 22.2.2004 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV) U.P, Kanpur, (herein after referred to as respondent No. 2) in Adjudication Case No. 39 of 2003, wherein the Labour Court has allowed the claim of one Shri Ram Babu son of Shri Pancham, holding that his services were illegally terminated by the petitioner on 10.4.2001 and that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages.
(2.) The case of the petitioner as setup in the writ petition is that the School was established with some grants from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Company, which has one of its Manufacturing units at Jhansi, only to provide better educational facilities to the wards of its employees and to the children of the neighbourhood on an economical basis. It is the case of the petitioners that one Shri Ram Babu (respondent No. 3) raised an industrial dispute where after conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Kanpur. The reference order of the Government dated 30.12.2002 stated as followings:- "Whether the employers have illegally terminated the services of Shri Ram Babu son of Shri Pancham (IVth class employee) w.e.f. 10th April, 2001 and if yes, then to what relief the workman was entitled to ?"
(3.) The claim petition of the respondent No. 3 has been filed alongwith his counter affidavit and from a perusal of the same, it is evident that the workman had alleged that he was working as Class-IV employee in the capacity of a sweeper in petitioner's school since 1993 on a salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month. Since, the respondent No. 3 alongwith other employees were working regularly but were being given facilities available to regular employees, they made a representation demanding Bonus, paid leave, medical benefits, uniform etc. Annoyed by the said representation, the authorities of the School on 10.4.2001 directed the respondent No. 3 to go out and look for some other job. The juniors to the respondent No. 3 were still working in the school as Class-IV employees. No notice or charge-sheet was given to the respondent No. 3, and also no retrenchment compensation, hence his termination was illegal. A prayer was made for reinstatement w.e.f. 10.4.2001 with full backwages and other consequential benefits including continuity of service.;