Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner M/s Muir Mills Limited, U.P., Kanpur is challenging the award of the labour Court dated 15.3.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No. 109 of 1994.

2. The facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner is a Textile Mill a unit of the National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Limited, Kanpur. The Mill was declared a Sick Textile under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The National Textiles Corporation (U.P.) Limited, Kanpur is a public limited company wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a subsidiary of the National Textiles Corporation, New Delhi. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and sell of cotton textiles.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the machinery of the Mill had become very old and ultimately production activity had completely stopped w.e.f. August, 1991 and since, there was no production in the Mill the workers were being paid their wages without doing any work. The Central Government also introduced a voluntary retirement scheme and most of the workers and even officials have taken the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and have been retired from their post.

4. It is also contended that a rehabilitation package is under consideration to revive the petitioner Mill and the matter has been referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the matter is still pending. According to the petitioner, in view of the specific provision of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no proceedings for implementation of any award etc. can take place during the pendency of proceedings before the B.I.F.R.

5. So far as, the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the case of the petitioner-Mill is that Devi Dayal, respondent No. 2 was never an employee of the Mill. He was only engaged for a very short period from time to time, as per requirement of work and in the year 1986 he was not given any work.

6. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute being Adjudication Case No. 163 of 1987 vide reference order dated 26.8.1987, wherein, the reference order was whether dispensing the services of the Devi Dayal w.e.f. 25.8.1986 by the employer Mill was legal and valid. The reference order was for three persons including the respondent No. 2, Devi Dayal. The dispute was ultimately decided by the Labour Court in terms of an agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the Union. The agreement dated 15.4.1988 was made part of the award dated 29.4.1988. Under the award, Devi Dayal respondent No. 2 was treated as a casual labour only. The petitioner’s case further was that after the said agreement, the respondent No. 2 was engaged by the Mill only on casual basis as per requirement of work and he was paid Rs. 20/- per day, which was later on revised to Rs. 30/- per day.

7. The case of the petitioner further is that the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute in the year 1990, for declaring him permanent on the post of the Plant Operator. A reference was made by the State Government by reference order dated 23.1.1990 and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur and numbered as Adjudication Case No. 91 of 1990. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2 was not engaged as casual labour any further after August, 1993.

8. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 raised a fresh industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government by reference order dated 16.3.1994, to the labour Court-I, U.P., Kanpur and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 109 of 1994. The reference was whether dispensing with the services of workman Devi Dayal w.e.f. 3.8.1993, was legal and just and if not what relief was he entitled to? It is also stated that the earlier Adjudication Case No. 91 of 1990 was also transferred to the labour Court-I, U.P.,