The High Court was of the view that the Labour Court rightly held that the termination was number invalid but that its direction that the appellant should be appointed if any of her juniors were working, was unjustified when there was numberfinding as to discrimination.
1999 1 SCR 930 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The appellant raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court by the State of U.P. under section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act on 7.9.1991.
12.4.1988 companyld number be termed as invalid but held that, even so, the principle of last companye, first go applied even in the case of those employed on daily wages and, therefore, passed an award to the effect that in case workmen Junior to the appellant were retained, the appellant must be companysidered for regularisation by re appointment on the basis of her seniority.
The appointment as an employee in the Municipal Board was regulated by Rules and Regulations and appellant was admittedly number appointed to any regular post in accordance with the procedure provided.
The High Court also held that the appellant companyld go before the Services Tribunal.
The Labour Court held that the termination of the appellants appointment w.e.f.
The High Court, therefore held that the direction issued for appointment of the appellant in case juniors were companytinued was number legally justified and the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
The appellant filed this appeal questioning the judgment of the High Court.
The respondent filed Writ Petition No.
This award was passed on 28.1.1993.
The appellant who holds a post graduate degree was appointed as a typist clerk on 15.12.1987 by the City Board, Etawah, respondent in this appeal.
Her services were terminated on 12.4.1988.
