STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH BUTOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh and other being the Executive Engineer of the irrigation Department, have brought in challenge the order of the High court which in its turn has confirmed the order of reinstatement and back wages as awarded by the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Dehradun in favour of respondent no. 1 -workman.

(2.) At the relevant time, respondent No. 1 was working as a daily wage cleaner on the motor truck belonging to the irrigation Department of the appellant - state. According to respondent - workman the truck became out of order and no new truck was purchased and as a result, because the exigencies of the work had come to an end the services of respondent No. 1 were dispensed with on 21/09/1988. He raised an industrial dispute which was adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, labour court, Dehradun in Case No. 77 of 1993. After hearing the parties, the labour court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 - workman was employed from September, 1984 to 20/09/1988. It was also found that when his services were terminated, retrenchment procedure as per Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes act, 1947 was not followed. As a result, an award was passed setting aside the order of termination and directing his reinstatement with full back wages and Rs. 500. 00 as costs. This order came to be confirmed by the High court in a writ petition moved by the appellants. This is how on grant of special leave the appellants are before us.

(3.) In the light of the concurrent finding of facts reached by the trial court as well as by the High court, it becomes clear that though the appellants contended that the workman was a daily wager and therefore, the provision of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947, did not apply there is no escape from the conclusion that the workman had worked for four years as clearly established and if he was to be terminated due to any exigencies of service, the procedure for retrenchment was required to be followed. As the condition precedent to such retrenchment was not complied with, the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour court could not be found fault with.