JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioners allege that they were working in Jal Nigam, VIth Construction Division, Varanasi in 1989 as Pump Attendant and Hand Pump Mechanic. The petitioners were muster roll employees. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Chief Engineer I. U. P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, vide letter dated 26.5.1991 directed that services of those employees who have worked for less than 240 days, may be dispensed with. The petitioners having completed more than 240 days and having continuously worked for more than 5 years were illegally terminated by impugned orders dated 30.11.1994 and 26.11.1994, Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively.
3. The impugned orders are being challenged on the ground that they have been issued by a Junior Engineer whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner was Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, respectively as such termination of their services by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that services of all other daily wagers except the petitioners were terminated in 1991 while the petitioners were continued in service for about 3 years after termination of other employees. It is further alleged that petitioners are in service for last more than 6 years and their services cannot be terminated in this manner in violation of G.O. dated 20.5.1991. The impugned orders have also been assailed on the ground that they are non-speaking and non-reasoned orders and have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. It is not denied that the petitioners workmen fall within the ambit of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no interim order in favour of the petitioners in this writ petition, thus the order of termination has taken effect about 8 years back. This Court cannot go into findings of facts as to whether the termination of services of the petitioners was legal, valid and justified. These questions require oral and documentary evidence and can at best be adjudicated upon by a labour court. The counsel for the petitioners submits that it would be in the interest of justice if the labour court is directed to decide the dispute within a time bound frame as the petitioners cannot get any substantial relief in the writ petition. As held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Union and Ors., 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 (63) FLR 478, the petitioners have an efficacious and alternate remedy of approaching the labour court.
5. The petitioners may move an application before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, who shall try to bring the parties to a re-conciliation. If no settlement is arrived at in the conciliation proceedings, the matter in dispute would be referred by him to the Labour Court. On receiving such reference, the labour court will fix a date of filing of the written statement within 2 weeks and decide the reference according to procedure prescribed and time frame under Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and adjudicate preferably within four months from the date of receipt of reference and for this purpose the hearing may ordinarily be continued day-to-day as provided under Rule 12 (4) of the said Rules.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.