- (1.) Heard Sri S.M. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prateek J. Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen in all the aforesaid writ petitions, except (Bhule Ram and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), which was filed through learned counsel Shri Akshat Sinha. Shri Sinha has appeared and made a statement, he does not have instructions in the matter. No other counsel has appeared to press that writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner in all these writ petitions , is the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad while the private respondents are the workmen who claim to have been employed by the petitioner-management on the post of Gardener. In (Bhule Ram and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), the workmen are petitioners while the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad is the respondent. For convenience, the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad is hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-management' while the workmen are hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-workmen'.
(3.) The reference made in each of the aforesaid cases was similar, being whether the services of the respondent-workmen as Gardener had been validly terminated by the petitioner-management. These references were made under the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad. Individual awards made in each adjudication case have been challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions. The Labour Court has made all but one award in favour of the respondent-workmen and granted them relief of reinstatement with 30% back wages. At the same time Adjudication Case Nos. 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299, 300, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 312, 317 of 2006; 47 of 2007; 49, 50 of 2008; 28 and 29 of 2009 pertaining to 41 workmen were decided against those workmen. It has given rise to (Bhule Ram and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.).;