JUDGMENT Anjanl Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 5th April, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. The award is modified to the extent specified in the order dated 5th April, 2002, that workman will not be entitled for any back wages. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.
2. Petitioner-employer by means of this petition has challenged the award passed in Adjudication Case No. 25 of 1982 dated 27th August, 1982,
3. The State Government vide its order dated 30th December, 1981 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk viu Jfed thr flag iq= Qdhjk flag dks lhtu 1980&81 ls dk;Z ij u fy;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]"k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr A**
4. Labour court issued notices to the employer as well as to the respondent No. 2, the concerned workman. On the date fixed, an application was filed on behalf of employer that their advocate Shri Chandra Pal is ill and cannot attend the Court on the said date, therefore, case may be postponed. Labour court has stated that in the order impugned though the signature of Shri Chandra Pal was on the application but there was no authorisation filed in favour of Shri Chandra Pal by the employer, therefore, the application was rejected on 31st July, 1982 and it was directed that the case be proceeded ex parte against the employer. Labour court on 31st July, 1982, directed the case to be fixed on 21st August, 1982 for recording the evidence of the workman concerned. On 21st August, 1982, again an application was filed by the secretary of the employer that Shri Chandra Pal is ill and, therefore, unable to attend the Court and another date may be fixed in the case. On this, an objection was made by the respondent workman that since there was no authorisation in favour of Shri Chandra Pal, therefore, this application is liable to be rejected and the application was rejected by the labour court. Labour Court proceeded to record the evidence of the workman concerned.
5. According to the case set up by respondent-workman, he the workman respondent was working in a co-opertive society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and that the workman concerned was appointed on the post of parchi distributor during the year/ season of 1977-78 against the regular vacant post, and his work and conduct was satisfactory and no complaint whatsoever was made against the work and conduct of the workman and the workman concerned was always awarded 'Grade-A'. According to the case, the workman concerned reported for duty in the next season of 1980-81. The season of 1980-81 started on 14th November, 1980, but inspite of the fact that workman reported for duty, he was not assigned any work and to refuse to assign any work is illegal and improper and this amounts to retrenchment as mentioned under Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, as the petitioner has not been served with any notice or payment in lieu thereof notice and other payment as retrenchment compensation. The workman further asserted that the job, which was assigned to the petitioner, is still continuing. It was, therefore, prayed that the workman is entitled for reinstatement and to continue in service with full back wages. Labour Court after going through the evidence on record of the workman concerned, found the fact that the workman was appointed in season of 1977-78 as seasonal parchi distri-butor and was permanent seasonal employee. His work and conduct was up-to-date. He worked as employee in every season till his services were terminated on 14th November, 1980. without making any payment as retrenchment compensation.
6. The affidavit filed by the employer did not refute the claim of the workman, therefore, the labour court accepted the statement of respondent-workman Zeet Singh that he was working as seasonal parchi distributor. His work and conduct was satisfactory and, therefore, he was entitled to work as seasonal parchi distributor. The action of employer in not assigning work for the season 1980-81 without any reason and without holding any inquiry was improper and illegal. Labour court, therefore, awarded that from the date of the award workman should be assigned work of seasonal parchi distributor with continuous service and work may in the ensuing season. Labour court has also awarded full back wages for the entire season of 1980-31 till the date of award. It is this award, which has been challenged by the employer by means of the present writ petition.
7. This Court will interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the labour court only when, the same is perverse and contrary to law.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of the labour court do not warrant any interference by this Court. So far as the direction for reinstatement of employee with the presumption that he should be deemed as if he has continued to work as seasonal employee right from the season 1980-81 is concerned, admittedly the petitioner has not worked during the season of 1980-81 till the date of the award, the petitioner shall not, therefore, be entitled for any back wages for the said season. However, services of the petitioner shall continue as seasonal employee.
9. With the aforesaid modification the award is upheld. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any. stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.