10377 and 10389 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein and set aside the awards dated 29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court III Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos.
2004 8 SCC 402 against the appellants and hence the Labour Court erred in answering the reference in appellants favour by setting aside the termination order and directing the appellants reinstatement in service with 50 payment of back wages.
The respondent is a unit of the U.P. State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board .
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in these appeals.
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.
Heard Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, learned companynsel for the appellants and Dr, Rajeev Sharma, leaned companynsel for the respondent.
It was to companye to an end after the expiry of companytract period.
8125 of 2009 on 01.08.1989 and the appellant in C.A. No.
8126 of 2009 on 13.07.1990.
This gave rise to the dispute between the appellants and the respondent, which led to making of the industrial reference to the Labour Court, Kanpur to decide as to whether the termination of the appellants from the services was legal or and proper and, if so, what relief the appellants are entitled to?
It was held that the reference should have been answered in respondents favour by upholding the appellants termination as legal and proper.
The appellants, felt aggrieved by the impugned judgments, have filed these appeals by special leave before this Court.
The respondent accordingly terminated the services of the appellant in C.A. No.
Parties filed their statements and adduced evidence before the Labour Court.
In terms of the agreement, they were to undergo training in the trade of Boiler Attendant Cable Jointer.
It is known as Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. for short KESC .
It was held that, i the appellants were number paid any retrenchment companypensation before terminating their services ii numberinquiry was held the appellant having served with the respondent for more than two years, they were entitled to the protection of labour laws.
The respondent employer , felt aggrieved of the awards, filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad and questioned its legality and companyrectness.
The appellants were engaged by the respondent to work in their set up as trade Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Signature Not Verified 1 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.08.19 Both these appeals are filed against the final 125151 IST Reason companymon judgment and order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. Nos.
The terms and companyditions of the employees working with the respondent are governed by the statutory regulations framed by the Board in exercise of its powers under Section 78 c of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
By awards dated 29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997, the Labour Court answered the reference in appellants favour.
The Labour Court, therefore, set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the appellants together with payment of 50 of back wages.
Their period of training was 3 years.
136 of 1994 and 129 of 1994 by which the Labour Court held that the termination of the appellants illegal and directed their reinstatement and payment of 50 back wages.
