Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14224 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sunil Datt Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 17.9.2019:-
"Petitioner was engaged in the employment of respondent in the year 1993. It appears that his working was interfered with on account of which a reference was made which resulted in an award being made in favour of petitioner in Adj. Case No. 22 of 1997. Labour Court found petitioner's termination w.e.f. 1.10.1993 to be illegal and consequently allowed reinstatement with back wages. The award of the Labour Court is stated to have attained finality. A consequential order under Section 6-H(1) has also been passed for release of petitioner's salary. Petitioner then applied for grant of regularisation and pursuant to an order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 27798 of 2014, the respondents were required to examine petitioner's claim in that regard.
The claim of petitioner has been rejected by the order impugned which records that the petitioner has only worked from 2013 and not prior to it. The order is assailed on the ground that in view of the award, petitioner's working from 1993 has to be treated as continuous and, therefore, the authorities are not justified in treating petitioner's appointment to have been made from 2013 alone.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter. Post as fresh on 27.9.2019."
Though learned Standing Counsel was granted time to obtain instructions but the same is awaited.
However, it is urged on behalf of petitioner that since facts with regard to earlier award etc. have not been taken note of in the order impugned, the respondents be directed to re-visit the issue.
As the facts, which have been noticed in the order of this Court dated 17.9.2019, have not been taken into consideration while rejecting petitioner's claim, the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner that order impugned suffers from non-application of mind appears to have substance. The engagement of petitioner was initially made in 1993 and his subsequent discontinuance has already been set aside under an award of the Labour Court. The respondents, therefore, would not be justified in ignoring the earlier period of working as per the award of the Labour Court while calculating the entitlement of petitioner to be considered for regularization under the rules. Since relevant facts have not been taken note of, the order impugned dated 1.5.2019 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
Respondents are directed to re-visit the issue. While passing the fresh order, award of the Labour Court as also the period of working included therein would be considered, particularly when the award is otherwise stated to have attained finality. The required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Anil