STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Beena Pande, the learned Standing Counsel (U.P.) for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No. 1 and Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award dated 7th September, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 93 of 2009. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman raised an industrial dispute in the year 2006. The reference made by the State Government was "whether the employer was justified in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 22nd March, 1989? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"

(2.) From a perusal of the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the validity of the termination order dated 22nd March, 1989 was challenged by the workman, which was raised after a lapse of 17 years.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his written statement contending mat he was employed as a Beldar in October, 1982 in Barrage Nirman Division-1, Haridwar, where he worked till 1984 and thereafter, the workman worked in Upper Ganga Canal Adhunikaran Pariyojna Di-vision-4 till 1989 when his services were abruptly terminated by an oral order dated 22nd March, 1989. In paragraph 2 of the written statement, the workman has asserted that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. The workman further contended that no retrenchment compensation was paid to him nor notice or pay in lieu of the notice was provided and consequently, the order of termination was in violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity in service and with full back wages.