Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. Writ petition is directed against award dated 9.12.2002 of Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Adjudication Case No. 83 of 1997 whereby it has held that since termination of workman amounts to retrenchment and has been made in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘1947 Act’), respondent No. 3 (the workman) is entitled for reinstatement with effect from 23.5.1995 with full back wages.

3. Facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute borrowed from the pleadings are as under:

4. Respondent No. 3 Chhote Lal raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was wrongly terminated by petitioner employer on 23.5.1995. Considering it an industrial dispute, the reference was made by Notification dated 10.7.1997 in purported exercise of power under Section 4 K of 1947 Act to the following effect:

“D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh NksVs yky iq= Jh eaxhyky ekyh dh lsok;sa fnukad 23&5&95 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr@rFkk oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\“

5. The aforesaid reference was made for adjudication of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 workman filed written statement alleging that he was engaged as ‘Mali’ in Zila Panchayat, Mathura on 1.1.1993 and was paid wages @ Rs. 1050/- per month. He was terminated by the Chairman, Zila Panchayat on 23rd of May, 1995 without following procedure prescribed under Section 6 N of 1947 Act and therefore the termination is illegal.

6. Petitioners contested the reference alleging that respondent No. 3 was actually engaged as daily wage muster roll employee and never worked as ‘Mali’. He was engaged as and when there was a requirement, by the concerned Junior Engineer. The Labour Court vide award dated 9.12.2002 (published on 26.5.2003) held that termination of workman was illegal since he had worked for more than 240 days in a year and therefore termination is in violation of Section 6N of 1947 Act, it is illegal. The Labour Court directed for reinstatement with full back wages.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned award only to the extent of relief of reinstatement with full back wages granted by Labour Court. He contended that workman was not appointed following the procedure prescribed in law. He was a daily wager and the Labour Court should have applied its mind, whether relief of reinstatement ought to have been granted or not to such a kind of workman. It however in a mechanical manner has directed for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. He also relied on the Government Order dated 9.6.1997 (Annexure 2 to writ petition) to contend that appointment as Ward Boy (1) was banned by the Government. Since the post being of no use, it was declared a dying cadre and therefore relief of reinstatement with full back wages ought not to have been granted.

8. Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for workman on the contrary, contended that respondent No. 3 was initially appointed on 1.7.1987 and had worked upto 22.5.1995 as class a IV employee. Since he was wrongly terminated, without following procedure under Section 6 N of 1947 Act, therefore, Labour Court had rightly directed for reinstatement with full back wages and no interference is called for in the present matter. He also pointed out that pursuant to interim order in the present writ petition passed on 29.8.2003, respondent No. 3 has been allowed to work on the post of ‘Mali’ vide order dated 23.11.2005 and pursuant thereto he is still working. Therefore, this Court must not interfere with the impugned award.

9. Simple question up for consideration is, whether relief of reinstatement with full back wages is a consequential, automatic relief, whenever a workman is found to have been terminated without following procedure prescribed i