Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Brajesh Shukla for respondent-workman.

2. By this petition, the petitioner i.e. Town Area Committee, Talbehat, District Lalitpur has challenged the award dated 2.3.1998 passed by Labour Court Ist Uttar Pradesh Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 122 of 1993 which was between Chairman, Nagar Kshetra Samiti Talbehat, Lalitpur and Sri Brijesh Kumar Batta S/o Bhagwat Narain Batta-workman. By seeking amendment in the writ petition the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.5.1993 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi whereby the industrial dispute was referred under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Kanpur to the effect that as to whether the termination of services of workman Brijesh Kumar Batta as clerk w.e.f. 1.8.1992 was justified, legal or not? If not, for which relief the workman was entitled to? Before the Labour Court the workman respondent No. 3 in his written statement had stated that he was working as clerk in the establishment of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.8.1989 and was deputed to work in Library. He was paid a sum of Rs. 20/- per day as remuneration on monthly basis. It was stated that even after one year when the wage of the workman was not enhanced he demanded for enhancement of wages but instead of redressing his grievances his payment was stopped from September, 1991 so that he may leave the employment. He was further stopped to sign Staff Attendance register and ultimately w.e.f. 1.8.1992 he was prevented from entering into the establishment of the petitioner and his services stood terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1992 whereas contrary to it, the petitioner in its written statement had stated that the respondent-workman was engaged as daily wage clerk w.e.f. 20.8.1989 at a rate of Rs. 20/- per day but ultimately he had unconditionally resigned from service on 31.7.1992 and also stated that he had taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Punjab National Bank for generating self employment and had no interest in service of the petitioner. It was also stated that the Chairman, Town Area Committee had accepted the resignation of workman on same day, as a result of which the relationship of employer and employee between Town Area Committee and workman respondent No. 3 had been broken. It was also stated that the services of workman respondent No. 3 had never been terminated by the employer and there existed no industrial dispute between the petitioner and the workman-respondent No. 3. It was also stated that any competent Union of the labour had never raised any dispute about the matter and further stated that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi had no jurisdiction to make reference of industrial dispute.

3. After exchange of pleadings between the parties they have also adduced oral evidence before the Labour Court. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and material evidence adduced by them, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the services of the workman-respondent No. 3 have been illegally terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1992 by way of retrenchment without any justification under law, as such directed the respondent-workman to be reinstated in service forthwith w.e.f. 1.8.1992 with continuity of service and other consequential benefits of service alongwith 50% back wage from the date of illegal termination of his services till the date of award i.e. for the period he was out of employment on account of illegal termination of his services.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid award passed by Labour Court is bad in law inter alia on the grounds that Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi had no jurisdiction to make reference of industrial dispute under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, therefore, on that count the reference is bad in law an