Full Judgment
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Since these two writ petitions filed by the petitioner-State of U. P., through Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Megh Chhappar, Saharanpur against the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 29.9.1997 and 23.10.1997, passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 107 of 1997 and 106 of 1997, respectively, raise common questions, facts and law, therefore, they are heard and decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The following disputes have been referred to by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour court for adjudication :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksaa }kjk viusJfed jktsUnz izlkn iq= Jh cythr flag dh lsok,a fnukd 13-5-1988 ls lekIr fd;ktkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha] rkslacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k o frfFk lfgr **
^^D;k lok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfediou flag iq= Jh bUnz flag dh lsok,a fnukd 13-5-1988 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gs rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k o frfFk lfgr **
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the parties.
3. A bare perusal of the reference aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the labour court was directed to answer the reference as to whether termination, of services of the workmen concerned, in each writ petition, were valid, legal or not? After exchange of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the workmen were appointed as part time tube well operators and the case set up by the workmen concerned was that they have worked for more than 240 days and their services have been terminated without complying with the provision of Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as no domestic enquiry was held and neither and notice, nor any retrenchment compensation has been given in lieu thereof to the workmen, which is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.
4. The case set up by the petitioner-employers before the labour court was that the workmen were appointed as part-time tube-well operators on particular tube well and since admittedly, the tube well on which the workmen were appointed did not work, the requirement of tube well operators came to an end, therefore, they were given notice dated 23.5.1985 to the effect that after one month, their services would stand terminated. Admittedly, the provision of Section 6N of the Act has not been complied with. The workmen have taken a case that in fact, the services have been terminated by way of punishment without holding any enquiry. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the workmen, in fact, were not the resident of the village concerned, which was the condition precedent for the appointment on the post of part time tube well operator and in view of the Rules, which came into effect in the year 1996, the post of part-time tube well operators stands abolished.
5. The labour court has recorded finding that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year and that their services have been terminated without holding any enquiry and without giving any notice or retrenchment compensation. The labour court after considering the material evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that termination of services of the workmen concerned were illegal, but since post of part-time tube well operator has already been abolished, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to the workmen. The labour court, therefore, held that even though the termination of services of the workmen concerned were Illegal, they cannot be granted the relief to continue beyond 13.5.1988 till 1996 as part-time tube well operators and thus, they are not entitled for regulaisation in accordance with the provision of Regularlsation Rules, 1996. The workmen were awarded cost of Rs. 1,000 as cost and in lieu of the back wages, they were given a lump-sum of Rs. 5,000.
6. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, that the labour court has considered the case of the parties in all aspects and recorded finding of facts, which do not warrant any Interference by this Court as this Court has already taken a view that the termination of part-time tube well operator amounts to retrenchment cannot be accepted without compliance of provision of Section 6N of the Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a decision of mine passed in Writ Petition No. 45218 of 1999, State of V. P. through Executive Engineer Tube Well Division-1, Saharanpur u. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and Anr., decided on 12.8.2002, wherein this Court has refused to grant the relief of regularisatlon with the following observations :
'but in view of the fact that new set of rules have come into force, the award of the labour court says that the workman shall be entitled to get lump-sum amount of rupees five thousand in lieu of back wages and rupees one thousand as cost of the litigation with a further direction that the department shall regularise the workman concerned In accordance with the provision of Regularlsation Rules, 1996.'
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands rejected. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.