NAGAR NIGAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with 40% back wages and with continuity of service. The petitioner has also challenged the reference order by which the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the workman was engaged on daily rated basis as a Lineman from 1st February, 1987 and was allowed to have worked continuously without any break in service till 1st September, 1989 when his services was dispensed with along with 13 other persons.

(2.) It was contended that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and that the provisions of retrenchment compensation contemplated under section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been adhered to at the time when the workman's services were terminated. The workman did not stir in the matter and did not raise any industrial dispute and kept quiet for a period of 12 years and, on one fine day, the workman filed an application on 28th January, 2002 before the Conciliation Officer for settlement of his dispute.

(3.) It was contended by the workman that he did not raise any dispute but having come to know that similarly situated workers and those who were junior to the workman have been reinstated pursuant to their case being allowed by the Labour Court and the High Court the workman has filed the present application. The delay in filing the application was condoned and since the parties could not arrive at a settlement, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report and forwarded the matter to the State Government. The State Government after considering the matter found it expedient to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court by its order dated 9th September, 2003. The terms of the reference order is somewhat like this: