STATE OF U P Vs. PUTTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition was dismissed by me on 11th October, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner-employer challenges the award of the Labour Court (2), U. P. Kanpur, dated 18th November, 1997, passed in Adjudication Case No. 151 of 1993, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The State Government vide its order dated 21st July, 1993, referred the following dispute for adjudication before the labour court. ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) After receipt of the reference, the labour court issued notices to the parties and parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence before the labour court. The case set up by the respondent-workman before the labour court was that the workman concerned was working as Chaukidar with the petitioner-employer with effect from 1983 till 15.9.1992 and his services were illegally terminated on 16.9.1992 and while terminating the services of the workman concerned, the employer have not complied with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', which is related with regard to the retrenchment. The workman further stated that he is covered by the definition of 'workman' and the employer is covered by the definition of 'industry', therefore it was incumbent on the part of the employer to comply with the provision of Section 6N of the Act while terminating the services of the workman. It was therefore, prayed by the workman that the action of terminating the services of the workman be declared null and void and he may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.