NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri H.M. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Nigam learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent workman and have examined the entire record.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the respondent workman worked for a period of more than 240 days and his services were terminated by the employer without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) IN view of the above I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal is just and fair and calls for no interference by this Court. However, I feel it would be appropriate to modify the impugned judgment and award to the extent that the respondent workman shall be reinstated with 50% back wages instead of 100%.