- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) Two connected writ petitions have arisen out of an award dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Ist) Allahabad in Adjudication Case No.25 of 1995. It is an award of reinstatement with 50% of backwages granted in favour of Daya Shankar Misra, respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.22682 of 2008. The connected Writ Petition No.4401 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order dated 13.1.2010, whereby the petitioner had been retired from service of respondent no.4 namely, U.P. Industrial Consultant Ltd Kanpur (in short be referred as 'UPICO') on the premise that he had attained the age of superannuation, which is 58 years with respect to the employees of U.P.I.C.O. A further prayer has been made in the said writ petition of 2010 to issue mandamus commanding not to retire the petitioner before attaining the age of 60 years and to permit him to continue till the age of superannuation. For the sake of convenience, the respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.22682 of 2008 be referred to as the "employee", hereinafter.
(3.) Sri J.P.Singh, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 at the outset submits that the award dated 26.4.2007 cannot be sustained in eye of law, in as much as, reference under Section 4-K of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to Act 1947) could not have been made. The reason urged is that Writ Petition No.7753 of 1986 filed by Daya Shankar Mishra had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.12.1988 holding therein that the respondents were not instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence no relief could be granted. Review petition filed by the employee had also been dismissed vide detailed judgment and order dated 6.12.1989 wherein this Court has held that no case for review had been made out as there was no factual foundation to infer that the Government has control over the affairs of the respondents.;