JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-employer aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi dated 5th February, 1998 passed in Adjudication Case No. 88 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 '6' to the writ petition.
2. The following reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication :-
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed fnus'k falag] iq= txjukFk flag] 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 fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \**
3. After the service of notice, the parties have filed their respective written statement and adduced evidence, as they want to adduce before the Labour Court. The employer have set up a case that the services of the workman concerned were terminated by the order dated 20th June, 1991 and thereafter he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in which initially an interim order was granted, but ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court. Thereafter the workman concerned was working with another branch of the employer and lastly the services of the workman concerned were terminated by the order dated 28th September, 1993.
4. The workman has set up his case that he was continuously working with the employer and before terminating his services, he has completed 240 days of working in preceding twelve months and that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with by the employer.
5. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit v. UP. State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 2001 (90) FLR SC 754, with which I am in full agreement, the argument advanced on behalf of the employer deserves to be rejected with regard to the fact that admittedly the workman has completed more than 240 days of working before terminating his services and further when the employer have terminated the services of the workman in the year 1991 and again in the year 1993. It is also not in dispute that the employer have not complied with the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination of services of the workman concerned has rightly been held to be illegal, unwarranted and not justified by the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court gave award for the reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages.
6. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are findings of fact and this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. This Court, therefore, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The writ petition, therefore, fails and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Lastly, learned Counsel for the employer-petitioner contended that in fact the workman has not worked during all these years and the Labour Court has awarded full back wages to the workman, which is not in accordance with law and also is contrary to the provisions of "No Work No Pay". Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will meet if the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman concerned shall be entitled only half of the wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of the award except when he was paid under the interim order passed by this Court.
8. 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.