MATHURA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as a Presiding Officer, Labour Court in pursuance of his selection under Sections 4-D and 4-E of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His first appointment was made vide order dated October 17, 1989 for a period of one year. This appointment was further extended for a period of one year by subsequent order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been granted another extension of six months. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court claiming for appropriate direction to the respondents to permit him to work as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court upto the age of 65 years. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this Special Appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two submissions in support of this Special Appeal, viz. (i) in view of the provisions of Section 4-C of the Act appellant is entitled to continue in service as Presiding Officer upto the age of 65 years; and (ii) State Government is bound to provide a permanent Presiding Officer to the Labour Court in view of the Section 4-A of the Act. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel.

(3.) Section 4-C of the Act on which reliance has been placed is re-produced below: Section 4-