RAM SURAT RAM, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, along with Sri Akshay Mohiley, for the petitioner and Miss Bushra Maryam, for respondent-3.
(2.) The writ petition has been against the award of Industrial Tribunal, dated 10.10.2017 (published on 27.12.2017), holding the termination of service of respondent-3, by order of the petitioner, dated 28.12.2015, w.e.f. 01.11.2015 was in violation of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and directing for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and other benefits.
(3.) On the application of Sikandar Sharma @ Surendra Sharma (respondent-3), Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute "whether termination of services of Sikandar Sharma @ Surendra Sharma, by order dated 28.12.2015 was legal and proper? If no, for what relief, the workman was entitled?" for adjudication of Industrial Tribunal under the Act, where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 17 of 2016. On the notice being issued, respondent-3 filed his written statement along with affidavit, stating therein that M/S Supertech Limited (the petitioner), is a commercial establishment, engaged in business to provide avenues to other traders to do business at national/international level. He was appointed as 'Supervisor (civil)' on 21.04.2011, in maintenance department of the petitioner. Since then, he was regularly discharging repair/maintenance work, to the full satisfaction of the petitioner. The petitioner also gave appraisal letters time to time to respondent-3, for his good works. On 01.11.2015, respondent-3 took leave from his superior officer, due to his personal work. On 02.11.2015, respondent-3 went on duty and after endorsing his attendance, he worked for about one hour, then by an oral order, he was stopped from discharging duties. Respondent-3 met with his higher officers on 09.11.2015 and 17.11.2015, then they asked him to tender a written apology. As directed, respondent-3 gave written apology but he was not taken back in 2 service. The petitioner wrote letters dated 20.11.2015 and 17.12.2015, of which reply were given through registered letters. Ultimately, by order dated 28.12.2015, services of respondent-3 were terminated w.e.f. 01.11.2015. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year and acquired the status of 'workman'. No proceeding for termination of service under the law has been followed and termination of his service was illegal. From the date of termination of service, he was unemployed. He was entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service.;