JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The employer UP. Jal Nigam, Mirzapur aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi dated 20th February, 1997, passed in adjudication case No. 106 of 1995, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'9' to the writ petition.
2. The following reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication :-
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed vo/ks'k dqekj flag] iq= Jh djsnhu= in iEi vVs.MsaV dh lsok;sa fnukad 28-9-93 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \**
3. After the reference was received before the Labour Court, parties exchanged the pleadings and adduced evidence. The case set up by the workman before the Labour Court is that he was appointed by the employers on 1st April, 1990 on the post of Pump Attendant. His services were terminated with effect from 15th June, 1991, until then he was working with the employers without any complaints. Being aggrieved by the action of the employers, the workman concerned approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 17920 of 1991 along with similarly situated other retrenched employees, in which this Court passed an interim order on 3rd July, 1991 and in pursuance thereto, the workman was again engaged and was working, but in view of dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition by this Court on 20th September, 1993, the services of the concerned workman were again terminated with effect from 28th September, 1993. Therefore, he has worked more than 240 days in preceding calendar year with the employers. The employers without any notice or compensation in lieu thereof have terminated the services of the workman concerned.
4. The employers have came out with the case that to cope with the additional work, the employers have engaged additional workman on daily wages, who were working and the workman concerned is one such workman who has worked for only some days and since when the additional work is over and no necessity of any additional was required, the services have been terminated after giving him notice and the compensation in lieu thereof.
5. The Labour Court after considering the case set up by both the parties and the evidence led before it, has found that the statement given on behalf of the employers are not signed by any of his officer, instead it has been signed by one Sri R.K. Srivastava and that too without any affidavit. The Labour Court recorded the finding that the services of the workman were terminated by the employers without complying with the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the workman has completed more than 240 days of working in previous calendar year. These findings being finding of fact though challenged by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-employers, but in vain. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by the Labour Court, I do not find any justification to interfere with these findings in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the legal position and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. However, in the interest of justice and as argued by learned Counsel for the employers, the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman concerned will be entitled only half of the wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of the award and thereafter he shall be entitled to full back wages.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with the modification to the extent, referred to above. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.