TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Samir Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, the learned counsel for the respondent workman.
(2.) THE workman was appointed as a Driver in the year 1975 to ply a bus of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The appointment was initially for a short period for one month but the service of the workman was extended for short period from time to time, and eventually, the services were dispensed with in the year 1986. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court with regard to the legality and validity of the order of the termination. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and that the compensation was not paid and accordingly, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition, which was entertained but no stay order was passed. Consequently, in compliance of the award, the workman was reinstated in service. It has been stated at the bar that the workman is still in service and has another two years to go before he reaches the age of superannuation. Since the award of the Labour Court was not stayed, it was required to be implemented, and accordingly, an application under Section 33-C(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was filed by the workman for the execution of the Award. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, computed the back wages, against which, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, which has been connected with this writ petition, in which, an interim order was passed staying the recovery of the amount.
(3.) SRI Samir Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on two grounds namely, that the award is an ex parte award, in which, no notice was served upon the petitioner and that an application for the recall of the ex parte award was filed within the stipulated period of 30 days, in spite of which, the recall application was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that it had become "functus officio". The learned counsel further submitted that a necessary party, namely, the Assistant Regional Manager or the Depot Incharge was not arrayed as a party, which also led to the non receipt of the notices and only the Corporation was made a party.;