CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is the University and for exigencies of work had employed the respondent workman on daily rate basis in the year 1994. It is alleged that the services of the workman was terminated on 25th April, 1996. The dispute was referred by the workman with regard to the alleged termination in the year 2002. The Labour Court after considering the material evidence on record has held that since the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year the termination of the workman without complying with the provisions of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not justified and accordingly, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 20% back wages.

(2.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is, that they had never terminated the services of the workman and that the workman had left the work on his own accord.

(3.) Further, it has been stated that the workman admittedly was employed on a daily rate basis and, even assuming that the provisions of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied by the employers, it does not entitle the workman for reinstatement since he was not appointed on a regular post and that employment on daily rate basis is made on exigencies of work.