SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) After a reference was made by the State Government on 11.8.2008 the matter was taken up by the Labour Court and an award was passed on 9.9.2010. The same was challenged by the petitioners by means of a writ petition numbered as Writ Petition No. 37342 of 2011. On 14.5.2013, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court with certain directions. The Labour Court again passed an order in favour of the petitioners on 26.9.2013, hence the instant writ petition.
(2.) The reference as was made by the State of U.P. was to the following effect:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) Initially when the award was passed on 9.9.2010, the Labour Court had found that the 25 workmen were wrongly removed on 11.7.2006. It had also found that the workmen had to be given salary in the scale of Rs. 2500-3200. However, no back wages were given. They were ordered to be reinstated in service and also a direction was issued that an endeavour was to be made to regularise their services. The petitioner in the instant writ petition and the workmen filed certain writ petitions. They were all connected and were decided on 14.5.2013 and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court with the following directions:- I. To decide as to whether the workmen had worked for more than 240 days. The workers were to file proper applications requesting the Labour Court to direct the production of all the documents which were in their possession to come to a conclusion as to whether the workmen had put in 240 days. II. The issue with regard to the pay scale in which the petitioners had to be paid their salary had also to be decided afresh by the Labour Court. After the remand the Labour Court decided the matter afresh on 26.9.2013 and held that the workmen were wrongly removed from their service on 11.7.2006 and that they were to be given pay in the scale of 2550- 3200. Reinstatement with continuity of service was also ordered. Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel made the following submissions:- 1. If the petitioners were unable to produce the documents which were directed to be produced by the Tribunal then no adverse inference ought to be drawn against the petitioner. 2. The burden to prove that the workmen had worked for 240 days in a particular calendar year was wrongly shifted on the shoulders of the employer. In fact it was the duty of the workmen to have shown that they had worked for more than 240 days continuously. 3. It was further claimed that the workmen were the employees of the petitioner at all. 4. It was still further contended that since the appointments, if at all were there, were dehorse the Rules, no advantage could be drawn by the workmen. 5. Regularisation could only be directed if there were Rules directing regularisation.;