LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-237

STATE OF U P Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

Decided On April 04, 2008
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
RAJENDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal for the contesting respondent. This petition is directed against an award of the labour Court dated 28. 2. 2002 as published on 29. 5. 2002 accepting the reference and granting reinstatement with 60% back-wages to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman was engaged as a daily wager with the petitioner Unit since 18. 5. 1990 and on his cessation, he approached the Conciliation officer, who finding that the parties were at variance, referred it as a dispute under section 4k of u. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court at agra which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 89 of 1996 and summoned the parties.

(2.) IN the written statement, the workman took up a case that he was employed as a daily wager on 18. 5. 1990 in the Irrigation Department of the State of U. P. and from October 1991 he was assigned the work of a Typist on daily wages but when he raised his claim for regularisation, his services were dispensed with on 31. 3. 1993 without any notice or retrenchment compensation. The specific case set-up by the Department in its written statement was that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis @ Rs. 20 per day in different minor irrigation projects which were only temporary and whenever they were sanctioned, the workman was engaged but for two years continuously, no project was sanctioned and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. It was also asserted that he was engaged from 6. 10. 1991 to July, 1992 and that he never worked as a typist and his appointment was dehors the rules and neither there was any work nor vacant post to engage him further.

(3.) AFTER the parties had filed their respective documents, the reference was answered in negative vide award dated 21. 7. 1997 holding that. he was not entitled to any relief. However, on an application moved on behalf of the workman, the aforesaid order was recalled and thereafter the impugned award was rendered holding that he had worked up till 31. 3. 1993.