The court clarified the responsibility for reinstatement of an employee following a labour dispute and the interpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in the context of employment rights.

Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5 and Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give joining to the petitioner at Soyabin Evam Vanaspati Pariyojana Halduchaur Haldwani, district Nainital or in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lucknow. He has further prayed to issue directions to the respondents to pay regular month to month salary alongwith the arrears of salary to the petitioner from the date of order passed by this Court on 30-07-2005 in writ petition no. 856 (SS) 2001.

3. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed by respondent no. 3 in the office of respondent no. 2 i.e. In-charge Project Manager, Soyabeen Evam Vanaspati Pariyojna, Halduchaur, Haldwani District Nainital as Helper on daily wage basis vide order dated 22-08-1985. The petitioner is a handicapped person. On 09-10-1991, the petitioner fell ill and went on medical leave. After the petitioner recovered from illness, he approached to respondent no. 3 for joining of the office, however the petitioner was not allowed by the respondent no. 3 to join his duties. On 20-04-1992, explanation was sought by the employer from the petitioner about his absence, to which he replied on 0606-1992. In the meantime, though the petitioner was reappointed on 25-02-1991 in regular establishment, however he was not permitted to join his services and vide order dated 27-09- 1993, he was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27-09-1993, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to Labour Court, Haldwani u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of following reference :"Whether termination of the services of Sri Rajeev Kumar S/o Mahesh Pr\3sad by the employer from 27-09-1993 is illegal I or justified? If not, then what benefit I relief the concerned workman is entitled for and to which extent."

4. The case was contested by the respondents before the Labour Court and the Labour Court on 30-06-1999 passed an order that the petitioner's services were rightly terminated and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, nor he is entitled for reinstatement in the service.

Feeling aggrieved with the Award dated 30-06-1999 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 856/2001 (ss) and this Court on 30th July 2005 quashed the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 30-06-1999 as well as the impugned termination order dated 27-09-1993 with the directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service and not to pay any back wages to him, except for the days permissible under the standing orders.

The respondents have not challenged this order dated 30-07-2005, which has become final.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, although the order passed by this Court on 30-07-2005 has become final; even thereafter the petitioner has not been permitted to join either with the respondent no. 2 or with respondent no. 3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Sri Ashish Joshi has submitted that since the petitioner was appointed in the project, namely, "Soya been Evam Vanaspati Pariyojria, Halduchaur, Haldwani" and the said project, after bifurcation of U.P. Cooperative Federation, has been transferred to Uttaranchal Marketing Federation and further the project, where the petitioner was working since 1985 was situated at Halduchaur, Haldwani, district Nainital and the project is still continuing at the same place under the control of Uttaranchal Marketing Federation, thus it is the respondent no. 2 who has to reinstate the petitioner in service in compliance of the order dated 30-07-2005 passed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for r