JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Petitioners-State of U. P. aggrieved by the award of the labour court dated 6.5.1999, passed in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 1995 approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 3.6.1995 referred the following dispute before the labour court for adjudication :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh lqcsnkj iq= Jh nsohnk odZeSu dks fnukad 1-9-1992 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk\**
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It is not in dispute that while terminating the services of the workman concerned w.e.f. 1.9.1992, he has neither been served with a notice, nor the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has been compiled with. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted firstly, that the workman has been employed as a muster role employee with the petitioners and also challenged the findings recorded by the labour court with regard to the workman's working with the petitioners for continuous 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also filed a supplementary-affidavit today by which he tries to improve his case but as the case, which is now stated in the supplementary-affidavit, has not been taken up before the labour court, the petitioners will not be permitted to raise the point now by means of the supplementary-affidavit. So far as the working of the workman concerned for 240 days in the preceding calendar year is concerned, following the date of termination, i.e., 1.9.1992, has been established as found by the labour court after considering the evidence on record. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with these findings regarding the working of 240 days of the workman concerned. Since it is admitted fact that the provision of Section 6N of the Act has not been complied with, the findings of the labour court that the termination of the services of the workman concerned were illegal and unjustified, do not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The direction by the labour court that the reinstatement with continuity of service also does not warrant any interference by this Court, but so far as the dues of back wages is concerned, since admittedly the workman concerned has not worked in all these days, in my opinion, he is entitled only 50 per cent of the back wages.
3. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.