SANTRAM SINGH Vs. WORKSHOP MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman being aggrieved by the award of the labour court has filed the present writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Electrician in the year 1989 and, since then, has been working without any break in service. The services of the petitioner was dispensed with on 13th August, 1998 without giving any notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the termination of his services, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the labour court. The reference was "whether the employers were justified in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 13th August, 1998 ? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to."

(2.) Upon the exchange of pleadings, the labour court held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and had worked for almost 9 years, and consequently, the employer was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without assigning any reason. The labour court also found that the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with. The labour court also found that the petitioner was entitled to be given a notice and retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court, however, instead of reinstating the petitioner in service moulded the relief and paid compensation amounting to Rs. 3 lacs. The workman, being aggrieved by this portion of this award, namely, payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the employers.