145 Paripatra /81 85 806 dated 27th March, 1985 directed regularisation of all daily wagers belonging to backward companymunity with immediate effect.
The second ground given by the High Court to set aside the order of the Labour Court is that the defence of the respondent companyld number be struck off simply because the respondent had number deposited the companyt subject to which the respondent was permitted to file the written statement.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that the labour companyrt did number have the jurisdiction and erred in regularising the services of the workman of its own.
Labour Court by its order dated 30.6.1987 passed an award in favour of the workman appellant, inter alia, directing his reinstatement with full back wages.
The Labour Court accepted the reference and vide order dated 6th July, 1995 regularized the services of the appellant on the post of yardman after companypletion of three years of service i.e. 5.4.1979.
Thereafter on 16.2.1994, a request was made by the appellant for regularisation of his services in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 27th March, 1985.
The following reference was made in the year 1994 by the Government under Section 4A of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the labour Court for adjudication Whether the number regularization of workman Motiram son of Raghubeer by its employer was improper and or illegal.
Counsel for the respondent did number dispute the fact that the Government Order dated 30.3.1979 had been issued to regularize the services of the workmen who had worked for more than one year on a post running for three years and that the other employees had been regularized in pursuance to the aforesaid Government Order dated 30.3.1979 read with letter dated 27.3.1985.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
Appellant, who belongs to a backward companymunity, was appointed on daily wages in the year 1976 as a Yard Man by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Gopiganj, Varanasi, UP, respondent No.1 herein.
Consequent upon a dispute raised, the Labour Court passed an award in the year 1980 directing reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and with companytinuity of service.
Appellant was then reinstated but was number paid full back wages.
The High Court has set aside the award passed by the Labour Court on these two grounds and by numbering the fact that appellant had already retired on 01.02.2001 directed that he be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/ as ex gratia payment.
That the labour companyrt at the most companyld have sent the case back to the government requiring it to companysider the case of the appellant for regularization in terms of the Government Order No.19/3/79 Karmik I dated 30th March, 1979 read with letter dated 27th March, 1985.
His services were terminated on 7th April, 1978.
Services of the appellant were again terminated in the year 1982 on the alleged ground of misconduct without holding an enquiry.
While the same was pending before the labour Court, Director of Mandi Parishad vide letter No.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.5692/2006 Leave granted.
The proper companyrse would have been to ask the government to companysider the case of the appellant for regularization of services of workman in accordance with Government order dated 30.3.1979 read with letter dated 27.3.1985.
He also raised a dispute before the labour Court seeking regularisation of his services.
Appellant was reinstated on 18.11.1988.
The High Court has erred in reversing the order of the Labour Court on this ground.
If yes, then the companycerned workman deserves such benefit, from what date and with what other details?
Since the respondent did number companyply with the companydition precedent of deposit of companyts, the written statement companyld number be taken on record.
Appellant again raised a dispute.
The filing of written statement was subject to payment of companyts.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the labour Court dated 6th July, 1995, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court which has been accepted by the High Court by its impugned order.
