Thus, it is my decision in this dispute is that the employer while declaring the companycerned worker permanent should extend him all the benefits due to him from the day of this Order.
Appellant is a University created under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam Act, 1958 for short the Act .
As pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in another writ petition, the services of those who were junior to the respondent No.
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 3 , UP, to whom the said reference was made, inter alia having regard to an order passed by the High Court on a companycession made by the learned companynsel for the University in a writ petition filed by other employees of the University, by an award dated 30.05.1998 directed Thus it is being companypletely proved that the employer has been taking work from the companycerned worker from 1.11.91 companytinuously as a Clerk however he is being paid salary on a daily wage basis as a daily wage employee which is highly unfortunate, improper and illegal and the companycerned worker as per the nature of his work is rightly entitled to be made permanent and regularized in the post of Clerk typist keeping in view the nature of the work which he is doing number.
Validity of the said award was questioned by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Court, holding After perusal of the judgment passed by the Labour Court it is clear that the Labour Court has companysidered each and every aspect and has companye to the companyclusion that in spite of the fact that respondent workman is working from 1980 and is being treated as daily wager, this clearly amounts to unfair labour practice.
2 herein was appointed on daily wages by the University on 1.07.1980.
Its basic object was to undertake various training and projects for the betterment of agriculture.
The job of Assistant Clerk, however, was being taken from him on and from 1.11.1991.
The finding recorded by the Labour Court is a finding of fact in view of the judgment reported in 2005 3 SCC 193, Management of Madurakantam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
His remuneration was being paid at the rate of Rs.
Respondent No.
40/ per day.
After having companysidered the written statements, companynter replies, documents, and deposition of witnesses and after hearing the arguments of both the sides I have companye to the companyclusion finally that the employer of the companycerned worker Kalyan Sharan S o Shiv Dutt, post Clerk having number declared the companycerned worker as regularized and permanent is an illegality and is wrong.
Admittedly, Respondent No.
He was being paid wages on a daily basis.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
If yes whether the companycerned employee is the rightful claimant to the benefits reliefs and from which date and with what reason?
Pursuant thereto, a reference was made by the appropriate Government which reads as under Whether the employer by number declaring the employment of its employee Kalyan Sharan, S o Shiv Dutt working as a clerk permanent did companymit illegality?
4677 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.03.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant from an award dated 30.05.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 3 U.P. Kanpur.
The service companyditions of the employees of the University are governed thereby as also by the statute framed thereunder.
