NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORP SINGRAULI SUPER POWER PROJECT Vs. SRI JAWAHAR LAL KHUSHINAND TEWARI LABOUR COURT STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th October 1982 and the Award in Adjudication Case No. 147 of 1981 passed by Labour Court, Allahabad which is published on 20th July 1983 and annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.

(2.) The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(3.) The respective cases of the employer and employee are that the respondent-workman, Jawahar Lal, was employed on 3rd October 1977 as Survey Boy with the employer. His services have been terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation with effect from 15th February 1981. The workman, therefore, raised the dispute which has been referred to the Labour Court, Allahabad and the Labour Court, Allahabad by Award in question has answered the reference in favour of the workman. Before the Labour Court, after exchange of pleadings, the employers have raised preliminary objection to the effect whether the order of reference is bad in law and gives no jurisdiction to the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the same in view of Section 4-A and 4-B read with Schedule 1 of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Labour Court, by its order dated 30th October 1982, has decided the preliminary issued against the employer and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to answer reference made to it under the provisions of the Act. In the prayer of the writ petition though it is prayed that the order dated 30th October 1982 may also be quashed but during the course of arguments no arguments were advanced, therefore, the challenge of the employers confines only to the Award. In reply to the demand of the workman before the Labour Court the employers have set up the case that workman concerned was employed on daily wages for casual survey work and when the survey work was completed the employers offered him alternative employment through contractor but the workman concerned has refused. Therefore on 14th February 1981 the workman concerned was given a month's notice and was offered a month's salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation which he refused to accept. Therefore, the workman concerned is not entitled for any relief. On the other hand as stated above the workman has set up the case that he was employed with effect from 3rd October 1977 and his services were arbitrarily terminated with effect from 15th February 1981. While terminating the services of the workman no notice pay nor any retrenchment compensation has been paid to him. It is further asserted by the workman that from 3rd October 1977 the workman has continuously worked with the employers till the date of termination. Thus he has completed 240 days in each calendar year. His services were terminated because he demanded regular employment and regular pay scale. On the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record the Labour Court arrived at the finding that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days in calendar year till the date of retrenchment and further the employer has not given any retrenchment compensation and provision of Section 6-N of the Act has not been complied with. The Labour Court, therefore, direct reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages.