U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DINESH KUMAR SRI AMAR CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT STATE OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 27th June, 2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Faizabad in adjudication case No. 138 of 1996, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'4' to the writ petition.

(2.) The following dispute was referred to for adjudication to the labour Court :" Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its employee Dinesh Kumar (son of Sri R. Chandra) Chaukidar w.e.f. 01-03-1983 is justified? If no, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

(3.) The case set up by the respondent-workman concerned in this writ petition was that the workman was appointed in temporary capacity as Chaukidar by the employer under Section 45 of the State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 at Kotila Bus Station by depot manager, Azamgarh vide its order dated 10th December, 1982 and the workman concerned joined the post on 10th December, 1982. The services of the workman concerned were terminated with effect from 1st March, 1983. The further case set up by the workman concerned was that after the appointment of the workman concerned, Harendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Prajapati, Yogendra Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Abdul Rahman were appointed on 15th December, 1982; 1st January, 1983 and 5th January, 1983, respectively. The services of the workmen who were appointed subsequent to the workman concerned, have also been terminated by the order dated 28th February, 1983. The workman further stated that the employer have re-appointed the aforesaid workmen, referred to above, who were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the workman concerned and were terminated along with the workman, but the concerned workman has not been given appointment, therefore the employer have violated the provisions of Section 6-P and 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'. In these circumstances, the termination of services of the workman concerned was illegal and the workman is entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages.