ATUL KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Clerk vide order dated 5-5-89. On 1-7-91 he was informed that his services were not required as there is no fund for the work in the office and he has also not worked since then. THE petitioner contends that he has completed 240 days of service and his services cannot be terminated orally. He further contends that his engagement was terminated which is against the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is alleged that respondent Rural Engineering Services in the State comes within the meaning of word "industry" as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and hence the services of the petitioner cannot be retrenched without following procedure as laid down under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) IN this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed, as alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. It is, however, directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will try to amicably settle the dispute under the provisions of the U. P. INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947. IN case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by authority concerned to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Labour Court according to the procedure and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. INdustrial Rules, 1957 for filing written statements, rejoinder documents etc. If necessary the proceedings may be held on day to day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules and the case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not beyond from the date or receipt of reference.