Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Standing Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.D. Yadav appearing for workman respondent No. 2 and perused the record. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Bareilly has been, arrayed as proforma respondent No. 1. The State Government on being satisfied that an industrial dispute exists made the following reference to the Labour Court, U.P., Bareilly where it was registered as adjudication case No. 190 of 1992: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... On receipt of summons, the workman filed his written statement and rejoinder statement was filed by the employers. The workman filed five documents on 20.7.1995 in support of his case and the parties also led oral evidence before the Labour Court.
(2.) By the impugned award dated 29.11.1999, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner employers to reinstate workman on the post of typist held by him before termination of his services but did not award any back wages. The aforesaid award was published on 16.4.2000 and has been enforced after thirty days of its publication as provided under section 6-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) The impugned award is assailed on the ground that appointing authority of class III employee is the Superintending Engineer, there is no post of typist in the department on which the workman claims to have been appointed; that a class III employee is also required to have knowledge of typing in the department, hence the impugned award directing reinstatement of the workman against a post of typist is totally illegal and without jurisdiction; that petitioner-irrigation department is a department of State of U.P. to which Government service rules apply, as such jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded to the aforesaid extent and that award is bad otherwise also on the face of it, facts and law.;