VINAY PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARUN Tandon, J: - 1. Petitioner employee before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Labour Court dated 10.2.2010 passed in Adjudication Case No.27 of 2005. The Labour Court after holding that the workman had wrongly been dismissed from service under order dated 20.07.1995 has directed reinstatement but without back wages. It is against the last part of the Award that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THIS Court while considering the writ petition made a pointed query to the petitioner as to how a reference under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act could be maintained on a reference made by the State of U.P. in exercise of powers under Section 4 -K of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) IT is, therefore, contended that in the 'acts of the case the reference was maintainable and could be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court. So far as the merits of the order refusing the back wages is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner had contested his termination affected on 20.7.1995 by raising a dispute in the year 1995 at the first instance. This reference was rejected by the Labour Court on technical ground on 5.3.2001. He made another application for a fresh reference being made under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act). The reference was, however, made under Sec.4 - K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act being Adjudication Case No.10 of 2002. This reference was also answered against the workmen on technical ground on 5.9.2003 by the Labour Court. The petitioner thereafter made a third application for conciliation in the year 2003. The State Government under order dated 6.6.2005 again made a reference under Sec. 4 -K of the State Act. After great persuasion on 14.11.2005 the workmen could succeed in getting the reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was registered as Case No.27 of 2005 which has given rise to the award part whereof is being challenged by means of the present writ petition. He, therefore, submits that in the facts of the case there was no fault of the petitioner as he had contested the matter all though out.