Respondent Nos.2 3 were reinstated in companypliance of the Award dated 17.8.1981.
Case No.15 of 1987 was lodged by respondent No.2 claiming wages from the period 1.6.1986 to 31.1.1987.
The claim made in that regard was negated by the Tribunal.
168 of 1980.
Accordingly services of respondent Nos.2 3 and others were terminated as the companystruction work at Fatehpur Sub station was over.
While another industrial dispute i.e. Adjudication Case No.1 of 1985 was raised.
If number, then what relief do these labourers are entitled to get and on what basis?
By order dated 17.1.1979, the appellant Corporation decided that numberone will be engaged as casual worker.
Respondent No.2 again filed Adjudication Case No.106 of 1987.
The Criminal Misc.
In the Adjudication Case No.50 of 1985 it was held that respondent No.2 worked as a casual Chowkidar as against the claim that he was working as Pump Operator cum Electrician.
Respondent No.2 filed a Criminal Contempt against the appellants alleging number compliance of the Award.
Application was allowed by the High Court.
Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code praying for quashing the proceedings.
Respondent Nos.2 3 disputed their termination on the ground that they were number paid the retrenchment companypensation.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent Nos.2 3 were appointed as Chowkidars as muster roll employees on daily wage basis in the Fatehpur Sub station on 1.6.1977.
The dispute was referred to the Tribunal in Adjudication Case No.168 of 1980.
The Tribunal held that the termination was improper as they had companypleted 240 days of service and their retrenchment was violative of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the I.D. Act , and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the U.P. Act and they were entitled to be reinstated with effect from 1979.
Appellants filed a Criminal Misc.
Respondent No.2 was asked to join the duties which he did number do.
The questions referred read as follows Whether termination of service by employers of Labourers Mohammad Jamil s o Shahamat Ulla and Nand Lal S o Ram Kishan Patel dated 1.2.1979 from Civil Construction Department is companyrect or legal?
Appellants filed writ petition No.17727 of 1985 inter alia challenging the Award dated 9.8.1985 in Adjudication Case No.1 of 1985.
When it was pointed out by the appellants that the issues raised by the claimants were already decided, respondent No.2 withdrew the case.
The same was again withdrawn by the claimant.
If the above stated reference 1 is answered in favour of the labourers then whether the employers should declare the disputed labourer as permanent.
On 1.6.1986 respondent No.2 was reinstated as a Chowkidar.
The Labour Court directed the appellants to pay for the said period at the rate of Rs.10/ per day amounting to Rs.1640/ which has been paid.
The High Court in W.P. No.15509 of 1983 remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide whether respondent No.2 was entitled to regularization which related to Adjudication Case No.168 of 1980.
Though there was a prayer for being declared as permanent employee, the Tribunal did number companysider that question.
Respondent No.2 filed Case No.5 of 1989 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for payment of wages.
In the said case it was held that termination was illegal but it was also held that he was number a regular employee.
On remand the Tribunal held that after three years of their joining in service, respondent Nos.2 3 were deemed to have been regularized.
According to the appellants, respondent No.2, after reinstatement, absented from duty illegally for several days.
Another Misc.
The same was subsequently withdrawn in the year 1990.
Respondent No.2 was asked on 23.7.1992 to report for duty as a daily wages Chowkidar.
Appellants filed Writ Petition No.4324 of 1991 challenging the said Award of the Tribunal dated 3.9.1990.
The Award was number challenged by respondent No.2.
Writ Petition No.15509 of 1983 challenging the Award in Adjudication Case No.168 of 1980 on the ground that the second question relating to regularization was number decided.
Similar directions were given on 4.1.1993.
Challenge in the writ petition was to the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad in short the Tribunal in adjudication case No.
Respondent No.2 filed Misc.
Respondent No.2 raised another industrial dispute i.e. Adjudication Case No.50 of 1985 claiming that he was a Pump Operator cum Electrician and, therefore, he was entitled to a declaration that he was to be paid salary applicable to the post he was holding.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
