NAGAR PALIKAR DEHRADUN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 3.6.1989 published in the Notice Board on 24.7.1989 (Annexure-V) passed by the Executive Officer, Labour Court. Dehradun.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No. 3 Parmanand was appointed as a Beldar on probation for a period of one year on the recommendation of the Engineer of Municipal Board, Dehradun. Later on, it was discovered that respondent No. 3 was related to the Engineer of Municipal Board, Dehradun and his brother was also already in service of Nagar Palika. Since his work was not found to be satisfactory, as such his service was terminated on 31.10.1987. The respondent No. 3 raised the dispute before the State Government of U. P. respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 made a reference to Labour Court, respondent No. 2 to determine whether the service of respondent No. 3 on the post of Beldar was illegally or rightly, terminated by the employer on 31.10.1987. The respondent No. 3 had filed the written statement alleging that his appointment on the post of Beldar was permanent and his work was satisfactory throughout. It was further alleged that the impugned order of termination of his service is wholly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that respondent No. 3 had worked for more than 240 days continuously and as such the order of termination is illegal. The petitioner contested the aforesaid reference filed before the Labour Court on the ground that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was illegal and also that his work had been found unsatisfactory and as such his services were terminated. The petitioner had denied that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable and it is claimed that the respondent No. 3 is not a workman. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the present reference and the award dated 3.6.1989 passed by the Labour Court, holding that the order dated 31.10.1987 is illegal and directing for reinstatement of respondent No. 3, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.