JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Lucknow and officials of the said Department challenging the impugned award dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which was notified on the notice board on 07.06.2016, in Adjudication Case No.170 of 1992 whereby the Labour Court has held termination of services of the respondent no.2 with effect from 01.01.1991 as improper and illegal with a further direction for reinstatement of the said respondent maintaining continuity in his past services along with back-wages at the rate of 50%. A further direction has been issued that the respondent no.2 shall be entitled for full salary from the date of publication of the award.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) came up with a case that he was regularly working in the department of Irrigation since October, 1988 as Camp Dhawak and was performing duties relating to distribution of post. It was further contended that all of a sudden, his services were orally terminated on 01.01.1991 and his salary with effect from March, 1990 to December, 1990 was also not paid regarding which the workman had earlier filed a case before the Controlling Authority, Deoria under the Payment of Wages Act which was pending. It was further contended that the nature of the work performed by the workman was permanent and the juniors like Indrasan, Keshav and Shrawan, etc were retained in service; that the provisions of Sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of the Rules were not complied with; that the workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days; and that he was wholly unemployed after the termination of his services despite best efforts.

3. The workman pleaded that the matter was registered as an Adjudication Case No.170 of 1992 pursuant to reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur where the question referred was as to whether termination of service of the workman by the Department with effect from 01.01.1991 was proper and/or legal ? If not, as to what benefit/ relief/ compensation the workman was entitled to receive ?

4. The Department also made its defence stating that the services of the workman were not terminated and that there was no question for payment of salary to him with effect from March, 1990 to December, 1990 as he had not worked during the said period. The Court finds that Annexure No.2 to the writ petition is a copy of the written statement filed by the Department in which nothing special has been averred except the aforesaid, however, in the impugned award, the Labour Court has discussed the defence taken by the Department also to the effect that the workman was working as a daily-wager as per the requirements and he used to be paid wages as per the work performed by him. Therefore, it appears that there is some additional written statement filed by the Department which has not been brought on record in support of the pleadings, however the Court will consider this defence also as the same has been dealt with by the Labour Court in the award impugned.

5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Oral testimony of the workman has been filed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit in which the workman stated that he used to get monthly salary and that his services were orally terminated with effect from 01.01.1991; that for getting payment of salary with effect from March, 1990 to December, 1990, he had filed P.W. Case No.46 of 1991 which was decided in his favour on 17.02.1995 against which order, the employer filed a Misc. Case No.00, which was also dismissed. It was further stated on oath that though the services of the workman had been illegally terminated, juniors to him, namely, Indrasan, Keshav and Shrawan were retained in service; that since the date of termination the workman was thoroughly unemployed and could not get jo