ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED AS A DAILY-WAGER ON 23-7-1997 WITH THE APPELLANT. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT HIS SERVICES WERE UTILISED ONLY TILL NOVEMBER 1997. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENT HE CONTINUED TILL 11-8-1998 AFTER WHICH NO FURTHER WORK WAS GIVEN TO HIM. THE RESPONDENT RAISED AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER THE U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. THE LABOUR COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD WORKED FOR MORE THAN 240 DAYS AND BY VIRTUE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 6-N, HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE REINSTATED TOGETHER WITH FULL SALARY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES WITH EFFECT FROM 11-8-1998. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED A. WRIT PETITION, WHICH WAS DISMISSED.

3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE SCOPE OF ALL THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO RETRENCHMENT IN THE CENTRAL ACT, NAMELY, THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 AND THE STATE ACT, NAMELY, THE U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 WERE DIFFERENT AND THAT ACCORDING TO THE U .P. ACT, THERE WAS NO RETRENCHMENT. THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS THAT THE LABOUR COURT HAD MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN GRANTING BACK WAGES AND ALL ALLOWANCES T