STATE OF U.P. Vs. KAMLESH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-workman.

(2.) Under challenge in the present writ petition is an award dtd. 27/9/2011 passed by the Prescribed Officer, Labour Court, Firozabad in Adjudication Case No.1 of 2011. Also under challenge is an order dtd. 29/1/2013 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the recall application filed by the petitioners has been rejected. The consequent recovery certificate dtd. 10/9/2012 as well as the recovery citation dtd. 29/12/2012 are also under challenge.

(3.) The facts, as they appear in the writ petition, are that the respondent no.1-workman was engaged by the petitioner-department for the first time in July 1999 on a daily wage basis according to need and requirement of the work available with the department, and the funds sanctioned for the same. The engagement of the respondent- workman was neither under any scheme nor against the sanctioned post and it was purely dependent upon the availability of the work and fund with the department. It is stated that the engagement of the respondent no.1 was continued from July 1999 till November 2002. Subsequently, he was again engaged by the department in November 2004 purely on daily wage basis and his engagement continued till May 2005. It is stated that after about five years of his disengagement as daily wager, the respondent no.1 has raised an industrial dispute in the year 2010 challenging his alleged disengagement with effect from 1/4/2010. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by an order dtd. 19/1/2011 under Sec. 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[1]. It is stated that the petitioner- department neither received nor was served with any notice of the adjudication case aforesaid. The adjudication case proceeded ex-parte and the respondent-workman filed his written statement and gave his testimony before the Labour Court. The evidences filed by the respondent-workman that were on record, were photocopies of some documents and certificates. [1] Act