A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of cert;orari for quashing the award dated 19.12.72 given in Adjudication Case No. 201 of 1972 issued under Notification No. 8722 dated 17.1.74 and published in Gazette dated 2.3.74 holding that the retrenchment of Ram Autar respondent No. 1 is illegal and invalid.
(2.) Facts in a narrow compass are that the petitioner, a company registered under Companies Act carries its business of printers having their painting establishment at Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 Ram Autar was a workman in the petitioner's establishment while respondent No. 2 Indian Press Mazdoor Union is a recognised Union of the workman of the petitioner. It is alleged that in view of the persistent Crisis, paucity of work and bleak future prospect of the printing industry it had been decided by the petitioner to resort to retrenchment in its establishment. The petitioner accordingly prepared a seniority list which was displayed on 12. 6. 1971. On 30 30.6.1971 Chhedi Lal Hand Fed Machineman, Sri Niaz Ahmad, Sri Raja Ram Bhatt Feeders Lallu Ram coolie, Sri Ram Dass III coolie, Shitladin Pandey and Bindeshari Pandey were retrenched in accordance with law and no industrial dispute arose as a result of the said order of retrenchment. The petitioner, thereafter further retrenched 10 workmen - vide notice dated 31.7.71. Out of such 10 retrenched workmen four workman took all their payment in full and find satisfaction while six workmen including respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute challenging the validity of the retrenchment order dated 31. 7. 71 on various grounds. On a reference being made to the Labour Court an award was given on 19.12.72 holding the retrenchment of respondent No.l as illegal and invalid. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 19.12.72 given in Adjudication Case No. 201 of, - 1972 issued under Notification No. 8722 dated 17.1.74 and published in Gazette dated 2.3.74.
(3.) The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the petitioner is that the retrenchment was effected after a seniority list was prepared and workmen were retrenched according to their seniority in view of the situation having arisen in the establishment. A notice as contemplated under Section 6 - N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was given to the State Government informing that the retrenchment would be effected 31.7.71. As a dispute arose between the parties a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court at Allahabad by a notification dated 3.7.1972. The petitioner participated in the adjudication and the parties filed their respective written - statements and rejoinder - affidavits. It is set forth in the petition that the written - statement on behalf of the workmen disclosed that the retrenchment of Ram Autar coolie is ineffective and inoperative because Janki and Khunnu Lal who are junior to Ram Autar respondent No. 1 have been retained in service and as such retrenchment of Ram Autar is violative of law. The petitioner in their rejoinder - affidavit before the Labour Court had stated that Janki was not a coolie but was assistant to Badloo Fitter and Khunnu Lal was a lead melter. The allegation that Ram Autar was retrenched while the junior to him in the category of coolie was thus alleged to be baseless and without any foundation. Necessary evidence in support of its case was filed by die petitioner before the Labour Court. It is stated that in view of the seniority list having been displayed and no objection forthcoming against it, the retrenchment was effected on 30.6.71 and 31.7.71. As per the seniority list Ram Autar was junior amongst the coolies on 31.7.71. Further it is set out in the petition that Lallu Lal and Ram Das III were retrenched on 30.6.71 and were not in employment on 31.7.71 when respondent No. 1 was retrenched.;