NAGAR NIGAM/NAGAR MAHAPALIKA BAREILLY Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed canvassing the validity of award delivered by the labour court on 28.2.1994 (Annexure -6 to the petition) attended with a further relief of mandamus restraining the labour court from implementing the award dated 28.2.1994.

(2.) MATRIX of the necessary facts as bear on the controversy involved in this petition is that Sri Prabhu Dayal, arrayed as respondent No. 5 in the present petition was engaged on daily wage basis on the post of clerk in the accounts department of the Nigam for a specified period, i.e., 60 days with the stipulation that his services were liable to be terminated after expiry of the prescribed period at any time without assigning any reason in accordance with the privity of contract between the Nagar Nigam and the respondent No. 5. It transpires from the record that the services of the petitioner were extended from time to time and each extension is stacked up back to back without there being anybreak and the extension granted from time to time endured upto 31.10.1990. It would further transpire from the record that the services of the respondent No. 5 came to be terminated by means of the order dated 22nd October, 1990, passed by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Bareilly. Aggrieved by the order of termination of his services, the respondent No. 5 knocked at the door of labour court. The proceeding pending before the labour court culminated in award aforestated and the quintessence of finding recorded by the labour court is that respondent No. 5 had worked from 31.10.1988 to 22.10.1990 in unbroken continuity and that in a calendar year, he had worked for more than 240 days. It has also been noticed in the award that no notice was served to the workman nor wages in lieu of period of notice or compensation for retrenchment have been paid to the workman.

(3.) IN view of the controversy Involved in this petition, for proper appreciation of the controversy, Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, may usefully be quoted below :