The central legal point established is that the termination of a workman's services without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 6n of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal and invalid.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, employer-petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court (V), U. P. , Meerut dated 20. 4. 1991. Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 25. 5. 1990 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (V) U. P. , Meerut. which reads thus :

"whether the termination of services of workman Sri Brijendra Singh son of Sri Kale Singh, by the employer w. e. f. 18. 2. 1989, was legal and valid? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date etc. ?"

( 3 ) THE labour court after exchange of the pleadings, written statements and evidences framed the following two additional issues :

" (1) Whether the workman is covered with the definition of workman under U. P. Industrial disputes Act. 1947, if so then its effect? ; and (2) Whether the employer is covered with the definition of industry, if so then its effect?"

( 4 ) THE labour court after going through the materials available on record has recorded findings on both the additional issues against the employer and has held that the concerned workman is covered by the definition of workman and the employer is covered by the definition of industry. In view of the findings recorded by the labour court on the additional issues that the workman concerned is covered by the definition of workman under the Act, the stand of the employer that since the workman concerned was employed on daily wages in employment which begins of the beginning of the date and automatically comes to an end of the close of the day and therefore the termination of the services of the workmen concerned would not be covered by the definition of retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned counsel appearing on behalf of employer-petitioners has relied upon a decision of five Judges Full Bench of this court passed in Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1981, Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U. P. . and ors. decided on 20. 5. 1992, wherein the Full Bench has held that within such period does not cover by the U. P. Act, the provisions of Central Act will apply. The provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) has been introduced in the Central Act by the amendment of 1984. At the time of the amendment, amended definition, which has been introduced by the amending Act of 1984, was not covered by the existing U. P. Act, thus by virtue of the proviso of Article 252 (2) of the constitution of India, the U. P. Act becomes the existing law and the Central Act as amended in the year 1984 would be the amending Act. The law introduced by the Parliament since both the central and U. P. Act covers the same field, it is the Central Act as amended in the year 1984, whereby the definition of retrenchment has been amended would prevail, therefore the contention of the employer that the Central Act would not prevail over the U. P. Act and it is the u. P. Act which will prevail is not acceptable.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-workman has relied upon a decision of learned single judge of this Court in U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer. Labour Court, gorakhpur and another. 2000 (85) FLR 879, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has held that Section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Ac (. 1947, will not be read along with the amended definition of the retrenchment as Introduced by the Central Act when It amended the section 2 (oo) (bb ). Against the aforesaid judgment of learned single Judge. U. P. State Sugar corporation Ltd. filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which has been clubbed as Civil Appeal No. 6116 of 2000, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Om Prakash and others, decided on 8. 8. 2001. The said judgment is in 2001 LLR 1220, wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the Judgment of this Court, referred