TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) SEVEN individual disputes were raised by the workers with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination w.e.f. 23rd of December, 1986. These disputes were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication which were clubbed together and a single award was passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages and with continuity of service. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that according to the workers, they were engaged from various dates in a permanent capacity and had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year, and that, their services were arbitrarily dispensed with by the employers without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act). The workers contended that the dispensation of their services was patently illegal and that they were liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioner, in their written statement, submitted that the workers were employed on daily rated basis on exigencies of work, and that, they had only worked intermittently and had never worked continuously, nor had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner further contended that no industrial dispute could be raised or referred since the employer was not an industry, as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) THE Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that though complete muster roll registers were not produced by the employers, but whatever registers were produced clearly indicated that the workers had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Labour Court also gave a finding that no notice or retrenchment compensation contemplated under Section 6-N was given by the employers to its workers, and therefore, concluded that the termination of the services of the workers was illegal, being violative of the provisions of Section 6-N of the ID Act, and consequently, directed that the workers were liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. The Labour Court also held that the employers did not lead any evidence on the question as to whether the employers come under the category of industry.;