The Respondents were appointed on an adhoc basis purported to be as apprentices on payment of apprentice allowance at the rate of Rs.
7279 of 1989 wherein the following judgment and order came to be passed I have heard the Ld.
Similar references were made with regard to the other respondents also.
However, the State of Uttar Pradesh made a reference of the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, Allahabad by a numberification dated 26.8.1987 in respect of the Respondent Ram Chandra Gupta Whether termination of the service of Shri Ram Chandra Gupta, son of Shri Mithai Lal from the post of clerk by the employer w.e.f.
The Respondents, however, were appointed as apprentices in the Assessment Department by orders of the Administrator dated 5.11.1985 and 6.12.1985 wherefor an office order was issued on 11.12.1985.
On or about 4.2.1987, they filed an application before the Concilliation Officer, Allahabad questioning the validity or otherwise of the said order of termination.
The following facts are number in dispute.
In addition, the Petitioner shall also deposit half of the arrears of pay and allowances, which can be withdrawn by workmen on adequate security.
The tenure of the services of the Respondents came to an end with effect from 31.12.1986.
The Appellant was companysequently directed to reinstate them in service.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh created 39 posts for Quinquennial Assessment of tax upto 31st March, 1986 or till the time the same were abolished in the scales of pay enumerated therein which was companymunicated to the Administration by a letter dated 19.12.1985 subject to the following companyditions Only ad hoc appointments are to be made on the aforesaid posts and if there is numberwork, or if there is numberrequirement even before the sanctioned period.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, a writ petition was filed by the Appellant before the Allahabad High Court which was marked as CMWP No.
31.12.1986 is justified and legal?
After 31st March, 1986, all the above posts shall be abolished companypulsorily and the appointments should number be extended beyond that period on any companydition.
230/ per month by an order dated 20th October, 1984.
If number, to what benefit relief, the workman companycerned is entitled to receive and with details thereof?
For the purpose of recruitment of employees, the procedures laid down in the Adhiniyam under which it was companystituted and the rules framed thereunder were required to be companyplied with by the Appellant.
The Appellant herein is a Municipal Corporation.
By an award dated 30th November, 1998, the Labour Court arrived at a finding that all the workmen had worked for more than 240 days during the period 5.11.1985 and 31.12.1986 and as their services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of their services was illegal.
Order of sanction for creation of some temporary posts was issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was the companypetent authority therefore, only on 19.12.1985.
They were appointed as apprentices by the Administrator of the Municipality by an order dated 11.12.1985.
23732 OF 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
S.L.P. CIVIL NO.
The appointments of the Respondents indisputably were number made in terms of the statute.
It was companystituted under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 for short, the Adhiniyam .
Counsels for the parties.
