ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. B. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. P. Agrawal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Gajala Bano Kadri, the learned counsel for the respondent workmen.

(2.) IT transpires that the petitioner had engaged a large number of workers on muster roll in the Ganga Pollution Scheme. On account of shortage of funds, a decision was taken to retrench the services of muster roll employees in various Divisions of the Nigam, who were engaged on or after August 31, 1989. In this regard, an order dated May 20,1991 was issued directing the concerned officers to retrench the services of the muster roll employees in accordance with law. Based on the said directions, the services, of a large number of muster roll employees were retrenched in June, 1991. The respondent No. 2 was also a workman employed on muster roll and was issued a notice dated June 22, 1991. An offer to pay retrenchment compensation in accordance, with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also made.

(3.) IT has come on record that the Union of the workers, namely, Jal Nigam Jal Sansthan mazdoor Union, Mirzapur filed Writ Petition-No. 18124/1991 challenging the retrenchment order, issued by the management to the muster roll employees, and an interim order dated July 8, 1991 was passed staying the retrenchment notice. Based on this interim order, respondent no. 2 continued to work. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on April 13, 1994 on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy of raising an industrial dispute. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the Interim order was' vacated, and, accordingly, the workman was disengaged w. e. f. July 1, 1994. The workman raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity and legality of his termination w. e. f. July 1, 1994. The validity and legality of the order of the alleged termination dated July 1, 1994 was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, eventually gave an award dated October 22, 1997 holding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the provisions of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with by the management at the time when the services of the workman was dispensed with on July 1, 1994, and therefore, the dispensation of the services of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court, consequently, directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of his services and with full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.