JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 19.11.1996 annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a daily wager in the petitioner-establishment on account of exigency of work on 21.10.1983 and thereafter he worked as a daily wager with effect from 1.7.1986, and when he requested for being regularized, his services were dispensed with from 1.7.1986 without compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute and the State Government exercising the power under Section 4-K of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute and Adjudication Case No. 5 of 1993 was registered. The dispute under Section 4-K is as follows:
Kya sewajko dwara apne shramik Ram Singh putra Shri Chandan Singh pad-Chaprasi/Cahukidar ke sewaen dinank 1,7.1986 se samapta kiya rana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hey? Yadi nahin, to sambandhit shramik kya labh/anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hey, tatha anya kis vivran sahit.
4. The case of the petitioner-employer is that he was never appointed in accordance with the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and was kept as daily wager and continued for some time due to exigency of work and on its coming to an end he was not required to perform any work as daily wager with effect from 2.7.1986.
5. The respondent No. 1 after considering the evidence on record gave the impugned award dated 19.11.1996 in favour of respondent No. 2 reinstating him in service with effect from 2.7.1986 and also awarded back wages on the ground that as the respondent No. 2 had completed 240 days and while dispensing with his service he had not been awarded retrenchment compensation as per Section 6-N of the Act.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly respondent No. 2 was kept as daily wager and his contract came to an end on each day, therefore, the cession of his services does not fall under the definition of retrenchment and consequently the compliance of Section 6-N of the Act does not arise. Further, that the provisions of UP. Industrial Disputes are not applicable to the cooperative societies as the services of its employees are governed by U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975, and further also that the labour Court has granted the relief of back wages in absence of the finding that during the said period the respondent No. 2 remained, unemployed.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of entitlement of back wages has submitted that the respondent No. 1, should not have passed the order in mechanical manner and the pleadings are no substitute for proof. In this respect he has relied upon the decisions in the cases of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh , Manager, RBI, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. reported in 2005 (105) FLR-1067 (Supreme Court) and Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 (94) 622 (Supreme Court). On the ground of non compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Taz Mulk Ansari and Ors. reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1188,U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Allahabad and Ors. reported in FLR 1994 (68) page-1195 and U.P. State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Kanpur and Ors. reported in ESC (Alld.) page 1183.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents in support of his stand in respect with non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramy Vikas Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad and Anr. reported in FLR 2003 (99) page-218 (Allahabad High Court).
9. On perusal of the entire record and the decisions cited by the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the respondent No. 1 has cursorily passed the award which is non speaking and does not refer to the evidence and other relevant material on record. The respondent No. 1 has based its findings of continuous service mainly on the statement of the workman without there being any proof in support thereof filed by the workmen on record. It has also allowed the back wages wrongly without any proof being submitted by the workmen that he had not been gainfully employed elsewhere during the period for which the back wages have been allowed. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are fully applicable in the present case. The initial burden of proof lay heavily on the workmen that he had actually worked for 240 days in a year and the onus of the same could not be shifted on the petitioner.
10. The labour Court-respondent No. 1 has thus committed manifest error in law on the face of the record in drawing adverse inference while holding that the workmen had actually worked for 240 days in a year. The impugned award dated 19.11.1996 annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by the labour Court-respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed. However, looking into all the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the labour Court-respondent No. 1 to decide the question of dispute in reference before it afresh after affording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.