A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 31-5-82 given in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1980 which was published by the State Government on 3-7-1982 and was enforced w. e. f. 2-8-1982.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was in the service of Respondent No. 2 as a Publishing Assistant with effect from the year 1949 His services were terminated w. e. f. 15-4-1969. Representations were made by the petitioner against the said termination order dated 15-4-1969 but to no avail. An industrial dispute was raised and was referred to the adjudication of the Labour Court, Respondent No. 1 on 31-3-1980 by the State Government as to whether the employer (Respondent No. 2) had rightly and legally terminated the services of the petitioner w. e f. 15-4-1969. The Respondent No. 1 by its award found that at the time of making the reference there was no industrial dispute as regards the termination of the services of the petitioner and thus it cannot be found that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was improper or illegal. However, considering the principles of natural justice Respondent No. 1 awarded compensation to the extent of ten months pay and other allowances which the petitioner was drawing prior to 15-4-1969 and directed its payment by the Respondent No. 2 within 30 days of the publication of the award
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed, in the year 1949, by Respondent No 2. His services were terminated in the year 1954. He was again employed as a Publishing Assistant after some time and his services were again terminated on 15-4-1969 though the post on which the petitioner was working is still existing and further that the juniors in service to the petitioner were retained in the employment it by the Respondent No. 2. The provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Act as well as Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with and thus the order dated 15-4-1969 terminating the services of the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 were illegal and improper.;