Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhanshu Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents workmen in all the above noted writ petitions.

2. All the above noted writ petitions have been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur. The first six writ petitions arises out of impugned common award dated 14.3.2000 passed in Adjudication Case No. 128/91, 129/91, 130/91, 133/91, 134/91 and 135/91. The last three writ petitions arise out of impugned common awards dated 21.2.2000 passed in Adjudication Case No. 248/91, 249/91 and 250/91. Both the above noted common awards have been passed on similar set of facts and on similar grounds and as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are being heard together.

3. Basic facts involved in all the above noted writ petitions are briefly summarised as under :

4. In the above noted writ petitions, the petitioners have filed supplementary-affidavits dated 1.5.2013, 31.8.2013 and 11.9.2013. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit only to the writ petitions. As per supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioners, the respondents workmen in all the above noted writ petitions were offered to join in terms of the interim order dated 28.11.2001 passed by this Court. While, the respondents workmen mentioned at serial No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 above joined and did work only for certain period, the respondents workmen at serial No. 4, 6 and 7 above did not join. As per supplementary-affidavits the respondents workmen are not presently working except the respondents workmen of Writ Petition No. 38337 of 2001 who worked between April 2002 to September 2002 and thereafter in April 2003, he got the appointment as Forest Guard.

5. In the first six writ petitions arising out of the impugned common awards passed in the above noted respective adjudication cases, the reference of the industrial dispute was made by the State Government vide order dated 15.5.1991. In the above noted last three writ petitions arising out of impugned common awards passed in the above noted respective adjudication cases, the reference was made by the State Government vide order dated 19.7.1991.

6. In the above noted adjudication cases, the respondents workmen took the stand that they were appointed on the post of Mali/watcher and they completed more than 240 days of uninterrupted service and, therefore, their services could not have been terminated without one month notice, retrenchment compensation or one month wages. The petitioners took the stand that this is not a case of retrenchment rather the fact is that a project was lauched by the State Government under the Social Forestry Scheme, which was for three years under which several persons were engaged from time to time on daily wage basis for plantation of trees and when the work was completed the concerned labourers did not work. The said scheme was financed by the World Bank. No documentary evidence was filed by the concerned workmen in support of their allegation of appointment as Mali/watcher. The petitioners produced in evidence Sri J.P.Chowbey (E.W.-1) who stated that under the above referred Social Forestry Scheme run by the forest department, labours have worked on daily wage basis, which work was completed and thereafter, the concerned labours voluntarily did not come. The work under the above noted scheme was completed by the funds provided by the World Bank. In paragraphs 1 to 10 of the impugned awards, the Presiding Officer noted the reference made in each case and the case as stated by respective workmen and, thereafter, in paragraph 11, he criticised the statement of E.W.-1 for not giving the details of the social forestry scheme and making the statement without reading it and accordingly disbelieved his evidence and recommended for action against the officers for