MAHAK SINGH SHRI PEERU SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL V AND SRIRAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sidharth, learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri S.P. Gupta. Senior behalf of respondent No. 21. On the joint request of the counsel for parties, Since the facts and grounds are common and, the impugned awards published on 23.2.1999 and put up on the notice board on 9.3.1999 are also the same in the four connected writ petitions, the above mentioned Writ petitions are being disposed off finally by this common order and judgment and order at this stage in terms of the High Court Rules.

(2.) The facts of the cases mentioned above in brief are that the petitioners-workmen were appointed between the years 1987-1991 and all of them worked till they were retrenched from service in the year 1994 and 1995 respectively. They have claimed to have worked continuously from the date of their appointment for more than 240 days but have beep. 3 wrongly and illegally retrenched from service in violation of the . provisions of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Similar references in each case was made (by the State Government under Section 4 K of the Act to the effect as to whether the termination of the services of the workman by the employer was just and/or legal? If not, then to what benefit/relief was the Workman entitled to.

(3.) In pursuance, of the above references in Adjudication Cases 134 of 1995; 139 of 1995; 132 of 1995; 129 of 1995 and 127 1995 registered by respondent No. 1. The written statement, counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged between the parties. The workmen petitioners submitted that they had been allowed the grade number and provident fund number and had been working continuously till the date their services were terminated, as they had demanded for Various benefits to which they were entitled to, their services were terminated without giving any notice or compensation as per law, though the juniors to them Were retained in service. Since they had remained' without after their wrongful termination they claimed reinstatement with full back wages.