JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner-employers aggrieved by the award dated 7.3.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1), UP., Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1991 approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }okjk vius Jfed Jh v'kksd dqekj iq= Jh eghiky flag] vehu dks fnukad 1-4-90 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd foafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k [email protected] vuqrks"k ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdlh fooj.k lfgr\**
2. In short the case set up by the workman is that he was appointed as daily wager with the employer on 1.4.1988 and he was working on the post of Amin till 9.4.1990 continuously when his services were orally terminated with effect from 1 4.1990. It is also stated that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding twelve months and while terminating his services the provisions of Section 6N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Act, 1947 have not been complied with.
3. The employers have set up their case that the workman was appointed on 2.4.1988 as daily wager and he worked from December, 1989 to 31.3.1990 since the post was not sanctioned therefore his employment was ceased after 30.3.1990. The employers have also disputed the date of termination in the reference order that it should not be 1.4.1990: They have also raised objection that the labour court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon regarding the date of termination and the referring order is illegal.
4. Both the parties have submitted their evidence and the matter was heard and decided by the labour court. So far as the question as to whether the labour court has jurisdiction to. hear the reference and the question as to whether the reference is in accordance with law, the labour court recorded finding against the employer. So far as the question as to whether the State of Uttar Pradesh is necessary party or not, this question has also been decided against the employer.
5. On the question of merits of the reference, the labour court after examining the material available on record have recorded finding that the workman in fact has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding twelve months and therefore, his services should not have been terminated without complying the provisions of Section 6N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has admittedly not been done and therefore, the labour court directed that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the findings recorded by the labour court but in my opinion has failed to demonstrate that the finding of the labour court are either perverse or suffer from any error much less manifest error of law so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision reported in [2001 (90) FLR 931] which I have gone through and after giving my considered thought I find that the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present set of facts. Thus, the aforesaid case does not help the petitioner.
8. The other decision relied upon by the petitioner is Supreme Court's decision reported in [2002 (94) FLR 618]; Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. and Anr. v. Ram Niwas and Anr. which is based on the provisions of Sections 2(oo) and 25F Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central) and not on the provisions of U.P. Industrial Act, 1947.
9. Since admittedly as per the findings of the labour court the petitioners have terminated the services of the workman without complying the provisions of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed.