Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.8.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 353 of 1999 passed by the labour Court, U.P. Kanpur Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that an Adjudication Case no. 19 of 1991 was pending before the Labour Court. During the pendency of the said reference the workman was restrained from working, hence an application under Section 6-E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved by him before the Labour Court for adjudication of deemed reference under Section 6-F of the Act for violation of it provisions. Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for adjudication in respect of dispute as to whether condition of service charged during the pendency of any proceedings before the Labour Court is as under:- " 6-F. Special for adjudication as to whether the conditions of service, etc. changed during the pendency of proceedings- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 6-E during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court or Tribunal, any workmen aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, and on receipt of such complaint that Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with this Act and shall submit its award to the State Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly." The case was registered as Reference Case no. 188 of 1991 wherein the respondent workman has stated that he was working as a daily wager, Chaukidar, Mali, Adeshpalak since October, 1988.
(3.) THE Labour Court by its award dated 30.9.1993 held that there as a violation of Section 6-F of the Act as such the workman was entitled to reinstatement of service as daily wager from 10.6. 1991.THE award dated 30.9.1993 became final as the writ petition and Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Adjudication case no. 19 of 1991 was in respect of regularization of services of the workman as well as other daily wagers working along with him was also decided vide award dated 15.3.95. It appears from the award dated 15.3.1995 that neither the services of respondent nO.2 were regularized nor the services of other daily wagers who were working along with him were regularized and their claim was rejected.;