RAM SWAROOP Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A. K. Dave, counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since Court at the outset is not satisfied for the reasons given hereinafter and is dismissing the writ petition, notices need not be issued to respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged as daily wager under Assistant engineer, II Sub-Division, Irrigation Division, lalitpur; that he had worked for more than 240 days in each of the calender year from the year 1980 to 1985 and that his services were illegally and wrongly terminated by an oral order with effect from May 26, 1999 and was not allowed to discharge his duties.

(2.) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged illegal termination before Deputy Labour commissioner, Jhansi. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated May 1, 2002 to the Presiding officer. Labour Court, U. P. Kanpur where it was registered as Misc. Case No. 95 of 2002, the reference before the Labour Court was: "vernacular matter omitted. " case of the workman before the Labour court was that he was appointed as Beldar against a vacant and substantive post under assistant Engineer, II Sub-Division, Irrigation division, Lalitpur and was thereafter transferred to Superintending Engineer, rajghat Nirman Khand, Lalitpur in the year 1986. It appears that workman had also moved an application for summoning the muster roll from the employer which were produced by them in the Court.

(3.) AFTER appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as well as considering pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court by its award dated July 7, 2006 which was enforced by publication on notice board on August 3, 2006, held that the workman had not given any proof regarding his actual and continuous working under the employers upto May 25, 1993 claimed by him. The Labour Court also relied upon statement of the workman that he had not been issued any appointment letter in support of his claim that he was appointed against a permanent vacancy on November 1, 1980.