TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the Sugar Corporation and has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the award of the Labour Court, by which, it has directed the Corporation to give an appointment to the son of the workman on the post, on which, his father was working at the time of his retirement along with arrears of wages from the date of the retirement of his father. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that a dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference is some what like this: "Whether the employers were justified in not giving an appointment on the post of Mechanist to the son of the workman, Mukhtyar Singh w.e.f. 21.4.1983 upon reaching the age of superannuation?"
(2.) THE Labour Court, after considering the matter, found that there was a settlement between the erstwhile employer and its workers to give an appointment to the heirs of retired workers as well as to the heirs of those workers who had died in harness. The Labour Court on the basis of this settlement held that the present employer was bound by the settlement and that the workman having retired, his son was entitled to be given an appointment on the post, on which, the father was working. Having heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for the workman, the Court finds that the Labour Court has misread and misinterpreted the settlement. Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit is a copy of the settlement entered between the erstwhile employer and its workers which is duly registered under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, in which, it has been stated that the heirs of the deceased workman or a retired workman would be given work as a substitute. The learned counsel for the respondents has also invited my attention to a notification dated 15.7.1982 issued by the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, wherein a similar provision was inserted for appointment of the heirs of a retired workman. The learned counsel has placed emphasis on clause (3) of the said order. This notification under Section 3(b) is not at all applicable to the petitioner's case. This notification indicates that surplus workers will not be retrenched but will be kept in a surplus pool and would be absorbed as and when a vacancy occurs. Clause (3) of the said notification indicates, that in the event, an unskilled worker retires and in the absence of availability of a workman from the surplus pool, in that case, the post would be offered to an heir of a retired workman provided that he was found fit for the said post. This clause creates two impediments, namely that there is no worker available from the surplus pool, and secondly an unskilled workman retires and an heir of the unskilled workman is fit for the post.
(3.) IN the present case, there is no finding that a workman from the surplus pool was not available. Further, the workman retired as a Machinist which is a skilled post and, consequently his son could not be given an appointment under this notification.;