(1.) The petitioner has questioned the validity and legality of the award passed by the labour court. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman concerned was appointed as a workman in the industrial establishment of the petitioner in the year 1972 in a permanent capacity and continued to work till his services were terminated by an order of 2nd December, 2002. The record reveals that the workman was suffering from an illness, and on account of which, he remained absent from 04th June, 2002 onwards. Eventually, the workman died on 31st March, 2003 after almost two months from the date of his termination. The heirs being, aggrieved, by the order of termination, raised an industrial dispute. The reference order was somewhat like this:
(2.) Before the labour court, the parties led their evidence. The labour court held that the workman was in employment for 30 years and that no enquiry or disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the workman. The labour court held that having worked continuously for such a long period of time, the petitioner was entitled to an oral enquiry, which had not been done. The labour court, consequently, held that the order of termination was not only in violation of the principles of natural justice, but who also in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which had also not been complied with. The labour court, accordingly, quashed the order of termination. Since the workman had died, he could not be reinstated in service and, since the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) were applicable, the labour court directed the employers to appoint one of the heirs of the workman under the Rules of 1974. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the said award, has filed the writ petition.
(3.) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Dubey, the learned counsel for the workman.