Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Narendra Mohan learned counsel for the workmen petitioners, in Writ Petition Nos. 30707/94 and 30531/94, and for the same workmen as respondents in connected Writ Petitions; and Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel of the U.P. State Electricity Board, for petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 12642/95 and 12643/95 and for respondents in the connected Writ Petitions.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the workmen Shri Saheb Lal Kureel and Ratan Lal Kureel, raised industrial disputes, which were referred by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act), to the Labour Court I at Kanpur, to decide whether the termination of services of Shri Saheb Lal Kureel and Shri Ratal Lal Kureel, the skilled workmen by the U.P. State Electricity Board on 1.6.78 was proper and valid, and if not, the benefits/compensation, which they are entitled to receive, and the date and other particulars.

3. The workmen in their written statement stated that they were engaged in the establishment as skilled workmen on 18.1.77 at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. They regularly worked upto 31.5.78. They had participated in the agitation for regularisation of ‘daily wages employees’ on which the employer was annoyed with them. The employer terminated their services on 1.6.78 without giving any notice or retrenchment compensation.

4. The U.P. State Electricity Board issued an order on 1.10.80 to regularise all the daily rated employees according to their seniority. The order was not followed and thus all muster-roll employees, who had completed 240 days of service in a year gave notice to the establishment for their regularisation. In a Notification issued by the Board 524 posts were declared to be vacant for regularisation. The workmen concerned with the dispute could be re-employed, however, instead of giving employment to those, whose services were illegally terminated, the persons from outside were employed. The employees preferred representations on 3.6.78, 3.9.78, 17.3.79 and 5.2.88 etc., but no action was taken.

5. The Labour Court I, Kanpur sent summons to the Executive Engineer, Electricity, 400 KV, Sub Station, Panki, Kanpur. These notices dated 25.6.1991 were refused to be accepted, and were returned with the endorsement of refusal. The Labour Court found that the summons were correctly addressed and that full address of the employer namely Executive Engineer, Electricity, 400 KV, Sub Station, Panki, Kanpur was given and then proceeded to decide the matter ex-parte.

6. The workmen produced the documentary evidence and examined themselves to prove their case. The documents included the order of the Board dated 1.10.80, which was proved by them. By this letter the Board had decided that all those employees, who have been retrenched by Board’s order dated 3.7.79, shall be considered for re-employment in the vacancies arising in the circle, in accordance with their seniority, suitability and character.

7. A press note issued by the Board, filed on record had declared that all those work charge employees and daily wages employees, who were drawing a minimum of Rs. 2/- per day and those, who have worked on the maintenance sites for more than 3 years shall be regularised. This advertisement included the skilled employees including cable jointer, store keeper, lineman SVA9, turbine driver, helper, fitter and lohar.

8. The Board’s order dated 25.2.81 provided that those muster roll employees who have completed 240 days in a year will be considered for employment in the vacancies before making any fresh recruitment. These documents and statement of the workmen recorded by the Labour Court established that they were a muster roll employee and entitled to the benefit of the orders of the Board. They were working on the post covered by the advertisement. They had not completed three years of service and were entitled to the benefit of