ORDER S.K. Keshote, J.
1. As common facts and question of law involve in these two writ petitions and as such the same are being decided by this common order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are as follows:--
The U.P. Jal Nigam (herein after referred as the Jal Nigam) is a corporate body which undertakes to execute various schemes regarding the water supply and construction of Tube-Well etc. as and where required for the public purposes. To execute the schemes and the construction of Tube-Well the Jal Nigam employs persons on daily wages according to need and nature of work. On completion of the scheme and work the services of daily wages come to end automatically. In connection with Allahabad Water Supply, Reorganisation Scheme, Katra Pumping Plan was undertaken by the Jal Nigam and to execute the said scheme the petitioner No. 1 engaged number of employees on daily wages to carry out temporary work, which according to the nature and terms and conditions of employment was liable to be ceased on the completion of the work. The respondent No. 2 Shri Javed Hashmi in Writ Petition No. 891 of 1985 was appointed on February 13, 1981 under the aforesaid scheme as Chaukidar-cum -Pump helper on daily wages. It was a purely ad hoc appointment on daily wages. This scheme was prepared at the instance of Allahabad Jal Sansthan by Construction Division of the Jal Nigam. Though this scheme was to be executed by the Jal Nigam but on its completion was to be handed over to Jal Sansthan and whereafter it was for the latter to maintain and continue the working of the scheme by its own staff. This scheme was completed by the Jal Nigam and handed over the same to the Jal Sansthan. The services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated vide order dated March 31, 1982 He was paid wages till March 31, 1982.
3. The respondent No. 2 Shri Ram Pratap in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4860 of 1985 was initially appointed purely on ad hoc basis on daily wages under petitioner No. 1 on November 13, 1988 in connection with supply of water in Magh Mela and his ad hoc services were to come to an end on February 28, 1981. . The respondent No. 2 was temporarily engaged on daily wages from March 27, 1981 to April 30, 1981 by the petitioner No. 1 in connection with a temporary scheme under taken by the Jal Nigam and named as Kul Bhaskar Ashram Degree College Drinking Water Supply Scheme. The respondent No. 2 lastly was engaged by the petitioner No. 1 purely on ad hoc basis on daily wages on May 1, 1981 in connection with the temporary scheme undertaken by it and named Allahabad Water Supply Reorganisation Scheme, Katra. He was engaged as Chaukidar-Cum-Helper. His services were also to come to an end on March 31, 1982 on completion and handing over of the aforesaid scheme to Jal Sansthan.
4. So both of the workmen, respondent No. 2 in these two writ petitions, were engaged on daily wages by the petitioner No. 1 in the same scheme and their services have to end on March 31, 1982.
The workmen raised an industrial dispute alleging that their services were illegally terminated by petitioner No. 1 on March 31, 1982. The State Government made a reference of the dispute separately for adjudication to the Labour Court of Allahabad of the respondent No. 1 under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act 1947), vide its notification on March 31, 1983. The workmen filed their statements of claim before the respondent No. 1. The petitioners filed the written statement to the claim of the workmen. The parties also exchanged rejoinder statements. In the proceedings from the side of the petitioner Shri Syed Hassan Ahmad was examined as witness. The workmen on the other hand examined themselves only.
5. In the first case the award has been made by the respondent No. 1 on August 13, 1984. In the second case the award has been made by the said authority on October 31, 1984. The respondent No. 1 passed the award in favour of the workmen for reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court further under the award directed that in case the Jal Nigam is unable to secure employment for the workmen concerned for their reinstatement in Jal Sansthan then they may be appointed in Jal Nigam itself. The termination of the service of the workmen was held to be illegal by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that same has been made in total violation of the provisions of Section 6N of the Act 1947. The workmen were neither given one month notice or notice pay nor paid retrenchment compensation before terminating their services. The petitioners have challenged these awards of the respondent No. 1, by these writ petitions before this Court.
6. The writ petitions were admitted by this court on January 11, 1985 and April 10, 1985 respectively. On stay applications in both the cases an identical order has been made which reads as under :-
"Issue notice.
I direct that until further orders, the respondents shall not take steps to implement the award dated October 31, 1984, provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) with respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from today's date. The amount so deposited may be paid over to respondent No. 2 without demanding any security from him."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the U.P. Jal Nigam is not an Industry and respondent No. 2 is not a workman, secondly he argued that the respondent No. 2 was engaged purely on ad hoc basis on daily wages and he has no right to the post. Thirdly he argued that order of reinstatement and full back wages is wholly arbitrary as admittedly the scheme was handed over to Jal Sansthan. Jal Sansthan was not impleaded a party to the reference nor any relief is claimed against the same. The petitioner has no work for the workmen. At the most the Labour Court could have awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Jal Sansthan is a separate body over which the petitioners have no control and as such it is difficult for them to get the workmen employed with said Sansthan. Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to decide the matter beyond the scope of the reference.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the workmen argued the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947 have not been complied with before terminating the services of the workmen and as such the Labour court has rightly passed the award of reinstatement with full back wages in their favour.
8. I have considered the contentions made by both the learned counsels. The services of the respondent No. 2 has been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947. The counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed this fact. The labour court has also recorded a finding of fact that the retrenchment of the workmen has been effected without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947 and this finding has not been challenged by the petitioners fin these writ petitions.
9. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly this point has not been raised by the petitioners before Labour Court. Secondly the question whether the Nigara is an Industry or not is a mixed question of fact and law and as such for adjudication of the same the proper forum was the Labour Court. Apart form this the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise this question first time before this Court.
10. The respondent No. 2 was appointed purely on ad hoc basis on daily wages in the Nigam in connection with temporary work undertaken by it of Jal Sansthan. The Labour Court has accepted in its award that the Tube Well has been handed over by the Nigam to Jal Sansthan. The work for which the workmen were appointed is no more available with the petitioners. The learned Labour Court has proceeded on the ground that the Nigam should have compelled the Sansthan to take the workmen in service and if it was not done then the services of them should have been terminated after following the provision of Section 6N of the Act, 1947. Lastly it has been held by the Court that in case Jal Sansthan does not take these workmen in service then the petitioners should keep them in employment. The learned Labour Court while deciding this case did not call upon itself to consider whether in the present case award of reinstatement with full back wages should be passed or in lieu thereof compensation should be awarded. Both these workmen worked on daily wages in connection with the temporary work. Work on which they were engaged has been completed and scheme has been handed over to Jal Sansthan. Jal Sansthan was not a party to the proceedings before Labour Court. It is also not the case of the workmen that Jal Sansthan was under any obligation to keep them in service. It is also not the case of the workmen that the petitioners were in dominating position to force or compel that the Jal Sansthan to keep them in the employment. It was also not the case of these workmen that they are out of employment. In the presence of these facts I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has Committed a serious illegality in passing of the award of reinstatement with full back wages in favour of the workmen.
11. It is a case where award of reinstatement with full back wages passed by the labour court cannot be said to be reasonable and in the interest of justice. Now the next question comes what is the adequate compensation which should be granted to these workmen. Services of these workmen were no more required as the work in connection of which they were engaged has come to an end. They were only daily wages employees appointed purely on ad hoc basis. They have no right to the post. It is a case where there was absence of need for continuance of post on which these workmen were appointed. As these workmen were only ad hoc daily wages employees their services are liable to be terminated at any time. It is a case where the post on which these two workmen were working stood abolished due to handing over of the scheme to Jal Sansthan. The Labour Court found only illegality in the action of the petitioners that they have not complied with the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947. In case one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation would have been paid the termination of the workmen was not questionable. Normally the order of reinstatement is made in such cases but looking to the facts of the present case in my view ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioners to pay an adequate amount of compensation to these workmen in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Shri Javed Hashmi had completed one year one month 18 days service on Mach 31, 1982 the date of termination of his services. The other workman Shri Ram Pratap has about 16 months services on March 31, 1982. In the presence of these basic facts I consider it to be reasonable to grant them three years wages by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
12. In the result this writ petition is allowed in part. The awards of the Labour Court, Allahabad dt. August 13, 1984 passed in Adjudication Case No. 31 of 1983 and dt. August 31, 1984 passed in Adjudication Case No. 32 of 1983 are set aside to the extent where the relief of reinstatement with full back wages has been granted to the workmen. In lieu of the reinstatement and back wages each workmen is granted three years wages by way of compensation. The amount of three years wages should be calculated on the basis of daily wages which were being paid to the workmen by the petitioner on the date of termination of their services.
V Calculation of the amount of compensation payable to these workmen should be made by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date on which the certified copy of this order is presented in the office by the workmen. The payment of amount should be made to the workmen within one month thereafter. In case amount of Rs. 5,000 /-has been paid by the petitioners to the workmen in pursuance of the order of the court passed on stay application then petitioners shall be entitled to deduct this amount from the amount of compensation payable to these workmen under this judgment. In case the petitioner failed to calculate the amount of compensation found payable to the workmen within aforesaid time and failure to make payment thereof to them within the period prescribed under this order the workmen shall be entitled for interest on the amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order.
13. No orders as to costs .