TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent workman.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman alleged that he was appointed on muster roll on a daily wage basis in November 1977 and that he had worked till 30.1.1979, and thereafter, his services was dispensed with. The workman further contended that at the time of the dispensation of his service, retrenchment compensation was not paid and since he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The workman contended that since the provision of retrenchment compensation had been violated by the employer, his dispensation of service was illegal, and therefore, he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. The petitioners contended that the workman was not entitled for any relief since no industrial dispute existed nor such belated dispute could have been referred. The alleged dispensation of service was made in the year 1979, whereas the reference was raised and referred by the State Government in the year 1991. On merit, the employer contended that the workman was employed on muster roll on a daily wage basis on exigency of work and that he had worked intermittently and had never worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and that retrenchment compensation was not paid, and therefore, held that the order of dispensation was in violation of the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the order of the conciliation officer, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to file objection with regard to the delay in raising the conciliation. The petitioners did not file any objection, and consequently, the Conciliation Officer condoned the delay in moving the reference. The State Government referred the dispute upon failure of the conciliation. The petitioners, now in a writ jurisdiction cannot turn around and allege that no industrial dispute existed or that old and stale dispute could not be raked up. This Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the question of delay in raising the reference.;