- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Phool Chand claiming for following relief which are being extracted below: " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order and judgment dated 22nd October, 1986 as passed by Opp. party No. 1, as contained in Annexure 3. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 20 23-07-1983 as passed by opp. party No. 3, as contained in Annexure 4. (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari auashing the impugned agreement settlementdtd. 9. 9. 1986 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition as entered between the opp. party No. 3 and 4 and any further agreement in pursuance there on. (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically and dispose of his representation as contained. in Annexures 1 and 2 to this writ petition and to direct the opposite parties to reinstate him in service with continuity and with back wages. (v) to issue any other writ, order or direction deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner including cost of this petition. "
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioner was appointed as unskilled workerin Scooters India Limited on 1. 8. 1975. Petitioner was subseauently promoted on setni skiiled category vide order dated 12. 2. 1982. On 30. 6. 1983 peti tioner was charge-sheeted for availing false L. T. C. claim from the company and in this background explanation was called for and petitioner was called upon to submit the same with in 48 hours from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet. Petitioner further submits that pursuant to said charge-sheet he wrote letterdated 14. 7. 1983 seeking tirne to submit his explanation on the ground that matter was being taken up at the Union level. Petitioner further submits that there after another letter was sent in continuance of the same on 20. 7. 1983 and qua these two letters no response has been sent and thereafter petitioner was served with copy of the order dated 20 23. 07. 1983 dispensing with the service as per standing order of company. After said order has been passed petitioner in the year 1985 moved an application under Section 11-C of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the said application being moved, Labour Court framed following two issues : " (i) Whether the Standing Orders 14. 2. 1 and 14. 21 (4)have been applied in the circumstances of the case, (ii) If not what is the result. " During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings the recognized Union of the workmen at that time "sil Employees Union" had submitted a charter of demand on 9. 10. 1985 and issuance of charge sheeted terminated employees on the ground of false LTC claim was also included in the charter of demand. The Union came in touch with members, whose services were terminated on the ground of false LTC claim, to give them authority and pursuant to the same Phool Chand petitioner also gave affidavit and power of attorney in favour of the Union for settling his case on 21. 7. 1986. After various discussion interse Company, Union and Conciliation Officer, a memorandum of settlement was signed between the Union and the management and registered with the Conciliation Officer under the provision of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as perterm and condition of the settle ment Clause C (1) incumbent whose services have been terminated on the ground of false LTC Claim and they had submitted their authority in favour of the SIL Employee Union will get Rs. 30. 000 alongwith Provident Fund, Gratuity as per rules for their full and final settlement. On 22. 10. 1986, case No. 5 of 1985, which was filed by the petitioner in the Labour Court under Section 11 -C of U. P. Indus trial Disputes Act, 1947, has been rejected and petitioner thereafter contacted the company for payment of an amount of Rs. 30. 000 as per memo randum of settlement dated 9. 9. 1986 signed between SIL and Union of Em ployees in term of settlement dated 9. 9. 1986 and consequent thereon peti tioner received an amount of Rs. 29,472. After seven year of acceptance of amount present writ petition has been filed before this Court and on presentation of present writ petition, it was connected alongwith the record of other writ petition and there after present writ petition has been decided alongwith connected writ petition by common judgment dated 31. 8. 1999 and thereafter judgment in question dated 31. 8. 1999 has been reviewed and present writ peti tion is now to be decided on merit. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI Abdul Moin, Advocate appearing for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case application under Section 11-C of U. P. Industrial Disputesact, 1947 has wrongly been rejected and furtheragreementinquestion was not at all binding and same was also not at all in consonance with the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further in the matter of according punishment there should not be disparity as similarly situated incumbents have been reinstated back in service and are still continuing as such claim of the petitioner has been grossly discriminated and as petitioner has beeometted with arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari appearing for Scooters India Ltd. contended that proceedings under Section 11-C of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were clearly not maintainable and rightful view has been taken in the matter and coupled with this petitioner has authorized the Union to enterintoagreementandsaid agreementhas been duly entered upon and has been acted upon and in this background petitioner cannot say that there is disparity in effecting punishment rather 30 incumbents authorized Union to enter into agreement and were part to the settlement, and each one has accepted the amount in auestion and they form separate class on account of such ' settlement as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed.;