TARUN AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour court under section 6f of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman was working as a conductor and was suspended on the basis of an inspection being made, wherein 14 passengers were found to be travelling on a bus without a ticket. The workman was charge-sheeted. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the workmen stood proved. The management issued a show cause notice to show cause why the services of the workman should not be terminated. Subsequently, the management by an order dated 28-11-1992 terminated the services of the workman.

( 2 ) THE workman, being aggrieved by the action of the management, filed an application under section 6f of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act before the labour Court alleging violation of the provision of section 6e (2) (b) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The workman contended that adjudication case No. 181 of 1992, with regard to his entitlement of wages to be given on the basis of work which he was performing, was pending adjudication before the labour Court and, during its pendency, the employer could not alter the service conditions of the workman by way of termination without taking approval from the Labour Court. It was also alleged that by terminating the services of the workman, one months wages, as contemplated under section 6e (2) (b ). was also not paid. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence that was brought on the record, found that adjudication case No. 181 of 1992 was pending consideration before the Labour court and, in view of the mandatory provision of section 6e (2) (b) of the Act, the employer was required to take approval of their action from the labour Court which had not been done. The labour Court, further found that the provision of taking approval under section 6e (2) (b) was mandatory in nature and non compliance of this provision resulted in passing a void order by the management. Consequently, the Labour Court held that since the approval had riot been taken from the labour Court, the order of termination was wholly illegal and that the workman was liable to be reinstated with back wages and other benefits from the date of his alleged termination.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid award, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri R. A. Gaur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent workman.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the employers had not taken approval of their action from the Labour Court under section 6e (2) (b) of the Act, it was a mere irregularity which could not make the order of termination void and that the Labour Court could not set aside the order of termination merely because the approval had not been taken from the Labour Court. The Labour court was further required to adjudicate on the merits and demerits of the order of termination. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. , Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand and another, (1978) 36 FLR 383 (SC ).

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in any case, the petitioner was not required to obtain approval under section. 6e (2) (b)of the Act because it was only available to those employers where Standing Orders was applicable to the workers. The learned Counsel submitted that in the petitioners corporation, their existed statutory rules and Regulations and, on the basis of these statutory Rules and Regulations, the services of the workman was terminated. The learned Counsel submitted that since there was no Standing Orders applicable to the petitioners-corporation nor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document