R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Peon in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Anand Nagar, Gorakhpur, here-in-after referred to as 'Mandi Samiti' on February 1, 1972. He continued to work in this capacity for some time. However with effect from October 1, 1973 he was appointed as Kamgar. On February 21, 1976, however, his services were terminated, aggrieved by which he raised an industrial dispute. State of Uttar Pradesh by order dated November 13, 1982, referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as Act, to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. However, subsequently this dispute was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal (II) U.P. at Lucknow vide Government Order dated February 16, 1985 where the dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1985. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements and adduced oral and documentary evidence. Industrial Tribunal gave its award dated November 29, 1985 in favour of respondent No. 2. The Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner Mandi Samiti is an Industry and respondent No. 2 worked for more than 240 days. However, he was retrenched from service without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, hence the termination was illegal and he was found entitled for reinstatement in servfce with effect from February 22, 1970 with full back wages and all consequential benefits and the continuity of service, pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri. B.D. Mandhyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had made the following submissions against the impugned award: (1) That Mandi Samiti is not an industry and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged dispute and the award cannot be sustained. (2) Respondent No. 2 is a public servant as declared under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' and the remedy for him was before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and the dispute cannot be referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. (3) The appointment order under which respondent No. 2 was appointed contained a condition that his services may be terminated at any time by one month's notice and as the termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the appointment order and the respondent No. 2 was paid one month's salary, the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act cannot be applicable. (4) That Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam under which respondent No. 2 was appointed, will prevail over Section 6-N of the Act.
(3.) It is submitted that the impugned award cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.;