Point of Law : Court does not find any cogent reasoning in the order of the Labour Court in so far as the denial of relief of reinstatement or back-wages is concerned.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. All these writ petitions cover certain factual and legal aspects which are common in all the matters. Therefore, while deciding these writ petitions by a common judgment, individual cases shall also be dealt with.

2. For the purposes of deciding these matters, Writ-C No.23241 of 2016 is being treated as the leading one.

3. Heard Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Janmed Kumar, learned counsel for respondent workman in Writ-C No.23241 of 2016 and Writ-C No.23786 of 2016; Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent workman in Writ-C No.22872 of 2016; and Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondents in Writ-C No.27687 of 2016.

Writ-C No.23241 of 2016

(M/S Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara And Another Vs. Labour Commissioner U.P. And 2 Others)

4. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 09.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court (I), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.275 of 1999, M/s Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara Vs. Munraj Singh. The award was published on 15.03.2016. Another relief has been claimed for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2014 whereby the Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur had, in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(4) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short U.P. Act), remitted the matter to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur for reconsideration.

5. The facts of the case, as per the pleadings contained in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of publication and distribution of newspaper under the name and style of ‘Rashtriya Sahara' and for the purpose of distribution of newspapers they incorporated regulations known as ‘Audit Bureau of Circulation' under which they appointed M/s. Rastriya News Agency and M/s. Awathi News Agency as news agents for distribution of news papers on commission basis; the respondent no 2 was appointed as hawker on commission basis for distribution of newspapers by the petitioners. After incorporation of regulations known as 'Audit Bureau of Circulation', after June 1996, the respondent no. 2 joined M/s. Rastriya News Agency and M/s. Awathi News Agency for distribution of news paper; the Deputy Labour Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 27.01.2000 referred the matter of alleged termination to respondent no. 1. The contesting respondent set up his claim that he was appointed as Salesman w.e.f. 01.06.1992 on consolidated salary of Rs. 950/-but since the payment was less than minimum wages, a demand was raised that was not considered by the petitioners and in violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services were terminated and as such the respondent no. 2 prayed for reinstatement.

6. The petitioners filed written statement inter-alia on the ground that the contesting respondent was a hawker on commission basis upto June, 1996 and, thereafter, there remained no relationship between them and as such in absence of employer and employee relationship there can arise no question of termination of service in year 1998, as after June, 1996 he joined M/s. Rashtriya News Agency and M/s. Awathi News Agency and after enforcement of Regulations of 'Audit Bureau of Circulation'. It was also stated that contesting respondent was not given any appointment letter nor applied for and also there exists no post of Salesman.

7. The contesting respondent filed his rejoinder affidavit; the petitioner also filed rejoinder statement and again reiterated the facts that contesting respondent was appointed as Hawker and as such at no point of time there was any relationship of employer and employee. It was also stated that provisions of Section 6N w