The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the workman's services, who had worked for over 240 days, was contrary to the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

In these two Writ Petitions, apart from certain minor factual disputes, the legal principal controversy remains the same. Hence, for the purposes of brevity, both the Writ Petitions are being decided together.

2. The controversy pertains to the service conditions and the consequential removal of the workman/respondent in the Writ Petition on 973 of 2012, which relates to the post, which the respondent was holding as a Book Lifter, and in the connected Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 903 of 2012, the respondent was working in the capacity of a Junior Clerk.

3. The controversy which emerges for consideration, is being first dealt with in relation to the Writ Petition No. 973 of 2012. According to the respondent workman in the written statement, which was filed in the proceedings before Labour Court, where the reference for adjudication was made as against the action taken by the petitioner of an oral dispensation of services, a reference was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, “as to whether the termination of the services of the employee, i.e. respondent, herein, was in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.”

4. The workman, in the written statement, has come forward with a case, that he was an unskilled labour, who was employed with the petitioner on 6th March, 2000, and he worked in the said capacity till 8th June, 2002, till his services were abruptly stopped on 8th June, 2002, and was not permitted thereafter to render his services, which gave him a cause of action to seek a reference under Section 4-K of the Act.

5. The workman in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court has filed the written statement, and had also appeared in the witness box as WW1, wherein, he has contended, that in the institution called as “Omkaranand Sarasati Mahavidyala, when he was made aware and got the knowledge, that there exists a vacancy of IVth class employee, he had filed an application before the Principal. The same was responded by the Principal, and thereafter he was called upon to appear for participating in the interview. The selection was conducted, alongwith the other candidates, and as consequence of the culmination of selection process, which was exclusively an interview, an appointment letter was issued in favour of the workman/respondent on 18th February, 2000, which was duly signed by the Principal as well as the workman.

6. Consequently, in accordance with the other evidences which were led before the learned Labour Court, both documentary and oral, it was observed, that the appointment of the workman was in accordance with the process of selection contemplated in the Degree College, in question, and after being appointed, he worked in the said capacity till 8th June, 2002.

7. The witness as adduced by the workman, he has stated that prior to the removal from the services on 8th June, 2002, he was never issued with any notices as such giving him an opportunity for adherence of the principle of natural justice, and as such, he contends, that the action taken by the employer was in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the Act, coupled with fact, that he was not provided with the retrenchment compensation by the petitioner prior to the dispensation of the services of the workman on 8th June, 2002.

8. The grievance of the workman before the Labour Court in written statement, and also in statement recorded as WW1 was, that when the institution was taken under the grant-in-aid, no opportunity of regularization of services of the workman, was given by the employer, nor any reason has been assigned for removal was mentioned.

9. He further submitted, that no disciplinary inquiry was conducted, nor any committee was ever constituted instituted as such. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the action taken by the petitioner was in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the Act.

10. The employer led his evidence by add