JAI PRAKASH AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant was working as a workman in the petitioner's company. He was terminated from service. The order of termination was questioned by him before the Labour Court. A reference had been made by the State Government. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the claimant and set aside the order of termination with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate the workman and pay his back wages. The writ petition was, however, filed in this Court against the said order which was dismissed with a modification that in stead of full wages, 75% back wages will be paid to the workman. An application was filed under Section 6H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by the workman. A direction was issued to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 72,769. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the workman had been offered to be reinstated in pursuance of the award but he did not join and instead moved an application under Section 6H of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that proceedings initiated under Section 6H (1) are without jurisdiction and the said amount could not be recovered when there was a dispute with regard to his reinstatement.

(3.) The petitioner states that notice was issued on 25.5.2003 to the workman to rejoin his duties but he failed to do so as a result of which his services became liable to be terminated. Without complying the notice the respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 6H of the Act for recovery of his wages w.e.f. 1.8.2002. Objection has been filed by the petitioner to the said application stating that respondent No. 4 could not present himself on duty and thus he is not entitled to claim any wages as he has not done any work during this period. Without examining the objections filed by the petitioner the impugned award has been passed.