SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner who had worked with the respondents as a Beldar/Mali with effect from 1.5.1989 till 31.3.1993 was by an oral order asked not to come to work and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. The State referred the matter on 13.5.2002 with a specific reference as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1993 was legal and as to what damages etc. were payable to the petitioner, if it was found his termination was not valid. After the matter was taken up by the prescribed authority of Labour Court, Varanasi, it was found that the petitioner was a daily wager and that he could not be reinstated in service. However, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to him after finding that the petitioner's termination was not valid. As the petitioner was not reinstated, he has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the work which the petitioner was doing was still subsisting then there was no reason for not reinstating him, specially when it was found that his services were wrongly terminated.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner was a temporary employee and was in the muster roll. He further submitted that the industrial dispute which was initiated by the petitioner was very belatedly initiated and that others had been employed in place of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service and no compensation should also be given to him.;