LALJI SINGH YADAV Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award of the labour court, Varanasi, dated 8.9.1995, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 145, 146 and 148 of 1989 and 53 of 1998, whereby the labour court has rejected the claim of the petitioners-workmen on the ground that the workmen concerned are not covered by the definition of 'workman' and their alleged termination cannot be said to be covered by the definition of retrenchment, inasmuch as petitioners Amar Nath, Surendra Nath Singh Yadav and Lalji Singh Yadav have worked from 1.3.1987 to 31.5.1987 ; 24.2.1987 to 23.5.1987 and 21.2.1987 to 20.5.1987, respectively for a period of three months. With regard to another workman, namely, Hosiyar Prasad involved in other adjudication case, since the labour court has accepted his case, therefore, this petition has been filed by three petitioners, whereby the labour court refused to grant them any relief and answered the reference against them.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1 as well as Sri G. D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(3.) After the notices were issued by the labour court, the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidences. According to the petitioners-workmen, they were appointed in the establishment of the respondent-employer on the dates referred to as stated above and their services have been terminated w.e.f. 1.6.1987 without giving any notice and without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also the case set up by the workmen that the employer have also not complied with the provision of last come first go, inasmuch as such workmen, who were appointed subsequent to these workmen, have been retained in service, whereas the petitioners' services have been illegally terminated. It is further stated that the job on which the petitioners were appointed was permanent in nature and that their attendance were being recorded on the attendance register and according to their attendance, they were paid wages.