UMESH CHANDRA Vs. NAGAR NIGAM ALLHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R. B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. K. Misra, and Sri U. K. Misra for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Counter and rejoinder -affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 20 -9 -2001 given by the labour Court, U.P. Allahabad and the order dated 20 -9 -2002 rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Safai Naik with full back wages with effect from 31 -10 -1990.

(3.) THE petitioner was engaged as daily wager Safai Naik on 10 -1 -1989 by the respondent No. 1 which engagement came to end on 8 -2 -1989. The petitioner was subsequently again engaged by the respondent No. 1 on 30 -5 -1989 and claims to have worked up to 31 -10 -1990. The petitioner was not continued after 31 -10 -1990, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner which was referred by the order dated 7 -2 -1998 by the State Government under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the labour Court Allahabad. The dispute referred was as to whether the action of the employers in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 1 -11 -1990 is valid or not and if not then to what relief the workman is entitled. Before the labour Court the petitioner and the employer filed their respective written statements. The case of the employer was that the petitioner was engaged for a fixed period whose services came to an end after the expiry of the period. The termination of the petitioner cannot be treated to be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman himself appeared as witness before the Tribunal. On behalf of the employer Sri Jagannath Pal was examined. Several documentary evidence were also filed by the parties. Labour Court by the impugned award dated 20 -9 -2001 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the petitioner has not completed valid service of 240 days; hence is not entitled for the benefit of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has not completed continuous service of one year within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.