REGIONAL MANAGER UPSRTC JHANSI REGION Vs. MAN SINGH SHER SINGH AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Rahul Anand Gaur learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents are present. 1. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the U.P. Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Depot with effect from 20.4.1974 on temporary basis, thereafter the services of respondent No. 1 were extended from time to time. However, his services were purely temporary and were liable to be terminated at any time. During the brief period of his services he was found carrying passengers without tickets and at one time on 6.6.1975 while on duty he misbehaved with one of the officers (Assistant Traffic Inspector). His services were terminated vide order dated 23.7.1975 as per the terms and conditions of his appointment letter dated 27.5.1974 by giving him one month's notice. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order-dated 23.7.1975 before the respondent No. 2 on 14.9.1987 i.e. after more than 12 years from the day when the cause of action arose without furnishing any reasonable explanation. It has also been submitted that on 23.3.1975 the day the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated and the cause of action arose, (SIC) the provisions of Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were not in existence, the provision has been made operative only with effect from 24.10.1978 and was not retrospective in operation and as such reference of the individual dispute in respect of the said order could not be made. Thus, the reference order itself was bad and liable to be quashed. The petitioner did not deny the specific plea raised in paragraph 8 of the statement filed on behalf of the petitioner before the labour Court that the respondent No. 1 was gainfully employed elsewhere, and the compliance of Section 25-F/6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not at all required as the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his services.

(2.) The labour Court passed the impugned award dated 29.10.1993 published on 29.1.1994 in favour of respondent No. 1 and directed the reinstatement of the workman without any back wages from the date of his termination i.e. 23.7.1975 till 1985, but allowed the back wages to the respondent with effect from 1986 onwards till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned award filed the present writ petition on the grounds based on the facts mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 1 denying the allegations made in the writ petition.