KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, KANPUR DEHAT AND ANOTHER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT (IV), U.P. KANPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Dube, the learned counsel for respondent workman.

(2.) THE petitioners have assailed the validity and legality of the award directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that as per the stand of the petitioner, the workman was engaged on a daily rated basis on exigency of work as a water boy, and that his services was dispensed with since there was no requirement of work. In the written statement, filed by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that the appointments are made on the post of clerk as per the Regulations framed under the Mandi Adhiniyam, and that, the workman was never appointed as a clerk nor does he hold the necessary qualifications.

(3.) THE Labour Court, after considering the matter, found, on the basis of the documents produced by the workman, that he was doing the work of a clerk. The Labour Court, further found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and consequently, held that the provisions of Section 6-N had been violated by the employers since no retrenchment compensation was paid at the time when the services of the workman was dispensed with. The Labour Court found that during the pendency of the proceedings before it, the workman had been reinstated on 9th February, 1995, and accordingly, directed that the workman should be paid full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.