Important point
Direction to pay full backwages consequent upon a declaration that a workman has been retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is not a rule. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Whether direction to pay backwages consequent upon a declaration that a workman has been retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (equivalent to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) as a rule is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23890 of 1992 dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein arising out of a judgment and order dated 8th July, 1992.

3. The Appellant is an undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Respondent herein was appointed on 23rd July, 1984 in a project known as Project Peetal Basti by the Appellant for looking after the construction of building, cement loading and unloading. He worked in the said project from 23.7.1984 till 8.1.1987. He was thereafter appointed in Non-Ferrous Rolling Mill. By an order dated 12/13.2.1987, the competent authority of the Non-Ferrous Mill of the Appellant passed the following order:

“Following two persons are hereby accorded approval for appointment in Non-Ferrous Rolling Mill on minimum daily wages for the period w.e.f. date indicated against their name till 31.3.1987.

Sl.No. Name Date

1. Sh. Hori Lal 7-1-1987

2. Sh. Uday Narain Pandey 8-1-1987"

4. The services of the Respondent were terminated on the expiry of his tenure. An industrial dispute having been raised, the appropriate government by an order dated 14.9.1998 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh:

“Whether the employer’s decision to terminate the Workman Sh. Uday Narain son of Pateshwari Pandey w.e.f. 1-4-87 was illegal and imposer? If yes whether the concerned workman is entitled to the benefit of retrenchment and other benefit?”

5. The Project Officer of the Appellant-Corporation appears to have granted a certificate showing the number of days on which the Respondent performed his duties.

6. The Labour Court in its award dated 31.10.1991 came to the finding that the Respondent worked for more than 240 days in each year of 1985-1986. It was directed:

“Therefore, I reached to the decision that the employer should reinstate the concerned workman Uday Narain Pandey son of Sh. Pateshwari Pandey w.e.f. the date of retrenchment i.e. 1-4-87 and he should be paid entire backwage with any other allowances w.e.f. same date within 30 days from the date of this order together with Rs. 50/- towards cost of litigation to Sh. Uday Narain Pandey. I decide accordingly in this Industrial Dispute.”

7. The Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in May, 1992 which was marked as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23890 of 1992 inter alia contending that as the Respondent had not rendered service continuously for a period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately before his retrenchment uninterruptedly, he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It was further contended that the appointment of the Respondent was on contractual basis for a fixed tenure which came to an end automatically as stipulated in the aforementioned order dated 12/13.2.1987.

8. An application was filed by the Respondent herein under the Payment of Wages Act wherein an award was passed. The said order was also questioned by the Appellant by filing a writ application before the High Court and by an order dated 12.8.1993, the High Court directed it to pay a sum of rupees ten thousand to the Respondent. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the Respondent is said to have been paid wages upto February, 1996. By reason of the impugned order dated 6.2.2004, the writ petition was dismissed holding :

“Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid findings recorded by t