MOHD ARSHAD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal which has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The State Government referred the matter to he Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. The terms of the reference order was whether employers were justified in terminating the services of the workmen, Mohd. Arshad, w.e.f. 1.11.1986? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to.

(2.) The petitioner in his written statement contended that he was engaged as a driver in the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad in the Octroi Department on 1.9.1984. It is alleged that he worked continuously without any break in service till 31.10.1986 and on 1.11.1986 his services were dispensed with. The petitioner alleged that the termination of his services was in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages.

(3.) The Nagar Nigam contested the matter before the Tribunal and submitted that the petitioner was engaged w.e.f. 2.9.1984 as a temporary, casual daily wage driver in the Octroi Department and that the casual nature of employment came to an end on 30.6.1986. The employers further contended that the services of the petitioner were never terminated on 1.11.1986 and, therefore, the reference order was invalid, inasmuch as no cause of action arise on 1.11.1986. Subsequently, the employers filed an amendment application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed in which it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on a fixed term and that his services on fixed term came to an end on 31.10.1986.