JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.

2. This writ petition is directed against an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow dated 27.01.2012 (published on 12.04.2012) passed in Adjudication Case no.252 of 2005. Also impugned is an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow dated 07.03.2013 passed in Misc. Case no.51 of 2012, rejecting an application by the petitioners, seeking a review of the award.

3. It appears that an application dated 25.09.2003 was made by the second respondent, Ram Chandra[hereinafter referred to as “the workman”] to the Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, under Section 2-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[for short “the Act of 1947”]. The application aforesaid was made with an acknowledged delay of 12 years, 3 months and 25 days. It was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the delay in making it.

4. It was said in the application for conciliation that the workman was employed in the establishment of the Assistant Engineer, Second Head Works Division, Sharda Canal Bifurcation, Pilibhit as a daily-wager, since the month of August, 1987. He was retained by an oral order made by the Assistant Engineer, last mentioned. The Superintending Engineer, 5th Division, Irrigation Works, Bareilly, the Executive Engineer, Head Works Division, Sharda Canal, Bareilly, and the Assistant Engineer, Second Head Works Division, Sharda Canal Bifurcation, Pilibhit, were arrayed as opposite parties to the application under reference. The said opposite parties are represented before this Court by the two petitioners, that is to say, the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Division, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Head Works Division, Sharda Canal, Bareilly. Be it the three opposite parties arrayed in the conciliation proceedings at Bareilly, or the petitioners here, they shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'employers'.

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, it was said in the application seeking conciliation that the workman discharged his duties with utmost devotion and never gave cause for complaint to the employers. The employers deputed him to do work in the office that was ministerial in nature. He was given an assurance that after some time, his services would be regularized and made permanent as a Clerk. It is also said that believing the said representation by the employers to be true, the workman continued to discharge the duties of a Clerk, in addition to his duties. He did not demand any additional wages. It is the workman's case that he repeated his request orally to the employers, asking them to regularize his services on a permanent post, but the employers would ward off the request. In the month of April, 1991, the workman claims to have forcefully asserted his claim to regularize and to be made permanent, which led the employers to orally terminate his service in the month of May, 1991. He was not served with any notice or paid notice pay or retrenchment allowance. It was also said in the application for conciliation that the workman met the employers time over again and orally requested them to take him back in their employ. However, no heed was paid to his requests. The workman claims that left with no alternative, he got a notice dated 04.07.2003 served by his learned counsel through registered post. There, it was demanded that the workman be taken back in service and his case be considered for regularization with confinement of the status of a permanent employee.

6. There is an assertion in the application seeking conciliation that the workman worked with the employers from the month of August, 1987 to May, 1991 contin