S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 14.11.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Ist), U. P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 131 of 2001. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer in terminating the services of its workman-Ashish Kumar Dixit-respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 1.6.1998 was valid or not. The case of the workman before the labour court was that he had been appointed on 10.4.1996 as Clerk under viklang (disabaled) quota. It was also stated by the workman that at the time of termination he was not given retrenchment compensation. Labour court held that the written statement had not been supported by affidavit while the application of the workman was supported by affidavit hence whatever was stated by the workman will have to be taken as correct. Labour court also observed that workman adduced oral evidence while employer petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence. Ultimately it was held that termination order was bad and reinstatement with full back wages was directed. In the award it is not mentioned that how the termination was bad. However, it may be inferred that labour court held the termination to be bad on the ground that as required by Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, retrenchment compensation had not been paid to the workman even though he had worked for more than 240 days.
(3.) EARLIER I had allowed this writ petition on 21.4.2009 without hearing any one on behalf of the workman respondent No. 2 as no one had appeared on his behalf. I held that as there was absolutely no allegation on behalf of the workman that any procedure was followed before his appointment, hence instead of reinstatement, award of consolidated damages/compensation of Rs. 50,000 was proper relief. For the said proposition, I had placed reliance upon the following two authorities of the Supreme Court : (i) Nagar Mahapalika v. State, AIR 2006 SC 2113 : 2006 (7) AWC 6799 (SC). (ii) Haryana S.E.D.C. v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 : 2006 (6) AWC 5437 (SC). I had also directed the petitioner employer to pay the said amount to the workman respondent No. 2 within three months.;