The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the employer to give notice to old daily wagers and offer them employment before filling up vacancies, as required by Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. These are the five writ petitions challenging the award of the labour court in which common question of law and facts are involved hence are being decided by a common judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53647 of 2000.

3. The Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration was constituted under the U.P. Transfer of K.E.S.A. Zone Electricity District Undertaking Scheme, 2000. It is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is hereinafter called K.E.S.A. The respondents workmen raised an industrial dispute on 10.12.1991, regarding termination of their services from dates mentioned in order of reference. The State made reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal-IIIrd, U. P. Kanpur, where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 305 of 1991. The dispute referred is as under :

"Kya sevayojkon dwara sanlagn parishishtha mey ankit 28 chhatnishuda coolie shramikon ko punah seva mey na liya jana anuchit avam avaidhanik hai? Yadi hai, to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/ upsham paney ke adhikari hain, kis tithi sey tatha kis anya vivran sahit?"

4. The case of the workmen was that the employer has contravened the provisions of Sections 6Q and 6B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rules 42 and 43 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The contention of the workmen concerned is that they were employed in the petitioner concern on different dates. The details of their working given by them are as under :

Name of workmen	Period of work
	From	To
S./Sri Mazhar Ali	8.5.72	15.5.74
Siddheshwar Prasad	8.5.72	31.1.73
S./Sri Sahab Prasad	19.2.70	31.7.72
S./Sri Raies Ahmad	10.10.68	7.8.79
S./Sri Ram Deen	8.5.72	31.1.73
S./Sri Siya Ram	5.12.65	30.4.66
S./Sri Bajarang Singh	3.5.71	31.5.71
S./Sri Mohd. Hassan	2.6.75	15.7.75
S./Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey	16.1.86	15.2.86
S./Sri Pardeshi	4.4.74	15.5.74
S./Sri Om Prakash	6.1.82	5.2.82
S./Sri Ram Chandar	6.1.82	5.2.82
S./Sri Mohd. Shamim	3.9.75	2.10.75
S./Sri Siddiqui	3.9.75	2.10.75
S./Sri Mohd. Jakir	6.1.82	5.2.82
S./Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey	6.1.82	5.2.82
S./Sri Ram Subhad	16.1.86	15.2.86
S./Sri Kishan Lal	6.1.82	5.2.82
S./Sri Jagannath	6.5.74	30.6.74
S./Sri Ram Swroop	23.9.75	22.10.75
S./Sri Ram Kumar	1.6.80	30.6.80
S./Sri Munni Lal	1.6.80	30.6.80
S./Sri Babu	1.2.80	20.2.80
S./Sri Ram Shankar	1.7.82	23.7.82
S./Sri Shatrughan Singh	3.12.74	7.1.79
S./Sri Kamaluddin	1.12.72	26.7.74
S./Sri Ahmad Ullah	18.11.81	31.1.82
S./Sri Rajendra Kumar	11.7.86	2.7.86

5. The first question is whether termination of dally wagers and casual employees is retrenchment. There are service rules and employment is given according to rules in this establishment. There is no evidence that the persons named above were recruited according to rules. The dates of employment as given by them show that they were employed for short periods.

6. The case set up by the petitioner employer before the Industrial Tribunal was that the respondents workmen were engaged for short periods for one or two months for casual work and they had not been engaged against any permanent work 15-20 years back and the provisions of Sections 6N and 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 42 and 43 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, are not attracted.

7. It appears that there was strike by the employees of K.E.S.A. and the respondents workmen were engaged to meet the contingency of work. U. P. State Electricity Board vide its O. M. No. 34-M.P.I. (O.S.)/S.E.B.-88-100 (2) N.O. 78 dated 13.1.1988 sanctioned filling of 350 posts of Coolies (including the resultant vacant posts of Coolies, etc. whic