- (1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the employers challenging an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra, dated 02.04.1998 and published on 05.09.1998 in Adjudication Case no.83 of 1994. The workman-respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in the following terms (translated into English from Hindi vernacular): Whether the act of the employers terminating the services of their workman, Shyam Lal son of Chunni Lal w.e.f. 17.07.1991 was lawful and proper? If not, to what relief/ damages the workman is entitled to and with what particulars?
(2.) According to the petitioners, the petitioners are a civil contractors firm dealing with the manufacture of Pre-stress Cement Concrete Poles required for Rural Electrification Projects of the then State Electricity Board. The business of the petitioners depends upon orders/ contracts, that are awarded by the Electricity Board. It has been pleaded that in case there are no orders or contracts for the manufacture of Concrete Poles as aforesaid, the petitioners' firm have no business, inasmuch as the said kind of Poles are not required by any other public or private enterprise.
(3.) It is pleaded that the petitioners' firm carried on its enterprise with a work force of a twenty and four men. The second respondent, Shyam Lal was the Factory Manager of the firm. He was earlier appointed on probation, but lateron he was confirmed in service vide order dated 23.07.1981. It is claimed that from the beginning of the firm's business till their closure, there were no disputes between the petitioner and their workmen. The relationship was very cordial. It is pleaded that since the month of March, 1990, there was no work orders coming the petitioner's way, and they were out of business for want of contracts to manufacture. The other workmen left job except respondent no.2 and the watchman, who stayed behind to look after the factory. The petitioners claim to have run into financial trouble as the U.P. Financial Corporation who proceeded with recovery of loan overdues against them, issuing a notice after attachment for sale. It is further pleaded that respondent no.2 left job in the aforesaid circumstances of his own volition and established a shop of his own to secure gainful employment. Lateron, he raised an industrial dispute on allegations of illegal termination, that are absolutely baseless according to the petitioners. Before the Conciliation Officer, and the Labour Court post-reference, an issue was raised that the respondent was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as he held a managerial position involving supervision. Apart from that on facts, it was disputed that his services were ever terminated, or that he was ever retrenched inviting the consequences of the procedure prescribed for retrenchment to be followed.;