DIVISIONAL LOGGING MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi in adjudication case No. 13 of 1998. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the action of Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman -Respondent No. 2 -Bheem Singh (Field Assistant) with effect from 31.7.1992 was just valid or not? The dispute was raised after five years in the form of C.P. Case No. 11 of 1997. The case of the workman was that he had worked as field assistant from 2.5.1989 to 31.7.1992 without any break and his services were terminated orally without payment of any retrenchment compensation and that after his termination some new employees were also engaged and in this manner provision of Section 6 -N, 6 -E and 6Q of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were violated. The case of the employer was that for collecting the tendu leaves the work load is mainly increased since the second week of May till the end of June hence during this period additional hands are engaged and Respondent No. 2 was also similarly engaged and that after abolition of post of Field assistant the workman on his request was engaged as chowkidar on daily wage basis however he himself left the job. It was further contended that since after 31.12.1988 there was ban on appointment in the forest corporation hence thereafter no new persons except persons belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe were engaged on daily wages.

(3.) WHEN the workman himself filed experience certificate showing that he had worked till 31.7.1991, he could not assert that he had worked for one more year i.e. till 31.7.1992. If in -fact workman had worked until 31.7.1992, he would not have accepted the certificate showing his working till 31.7.1991. Even if it is assumed that the workman had worked until 31.7.1991 still when he asked for certificate of working in the year 1993 it clearly meant that he had abandoned the job otherwise instead of asking for certificate of his experience for his past services he would have asked for employment. In any case the dispute was raised quite late.