State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V) and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut dated 6.10.1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1993. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The State Government in exercise of its power u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide its order dated 23.2.1993 referred the following dispute before the Tribunal for adjudication.

other language

After notices were issued to the employer-Petitioner as well as the workman concerned, the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidences before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the case set up by the employer, namely, that the appointment of the concerned workman was a fixed term appointment for three years on the post of part time tube well operator. For this, the employer have relied upon a document said to be the letter of appointment dated 28.10.1997 Ext. W-1. The Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record has recorded findings that the letter of appointment Ext. W-1 does not mention that the appointment is for a period of three years and that it was part-time employment. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has recorded findings that the case set up by the employer is not accepted as it was open to the employer to stick to the date when three years ended, but they allowed the workman to continue in service beyond that specific period. The next contention of learned standing counsel on behalf of the Petitioner is that in any case the services of the workman concerned came to an end immediately after expiry of three years. This argument is also not even supported from the material evidence on record. Even assuming that it has come to an end, but it is an admitted case between the parties and the findings recorded by the Tribunal that even after expiry of the period of three years, the workman was allowed to work and had also worked, meaning thereby, in terms of the Tribunal "Having agreed to continue to work beyond three years, the employers, by implication, accepted that services of the workman were required by them." Thus, the argument has no force that the services of the workman stood automatically terminated after three years, because the employer himself allowed him to work.

It is also admitted case that before terminating the services of the workman concerned with effect from 15.1.1992, the procedure prescribed for retrenchment has not been complied with. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the termination of services of the workman concerned is illegal and the workman is entitled for reinstatement as regular with full back wages and continuity of service, do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore, has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.