The termination of an employee must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and allegations of discrimination must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This litigation, and the history, which it carries itself will be one of the best example of mockery of judicial system. The respondent/workman was appointed with the local body /petitioner as a Toll Moharir on 30th October, 1983. Consequent to his induction, the State Government has issued a Government Order on 30th June, 1990, by virtue of which, the octroi system was abolished.

2. The consequential effect of the Government Order dated 30th June, 1990, was that all the employees, who were not regular, their services stood terminated, but those who have acquired the status of being regular employees, they were supposed to be adjusted in the other departments of the local bodies.

3. The facts, herein, are that the respondent/workman on account of an atrocious act of the petitioner of dispensing his services have initially sought a reference of dispute to be adjudicated under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to be decided by G.O. No. 4029-33/CP45/95 dated 27th May, 1993, and consequent to the reference made, an Adjudication Case No. 24 of 1997 was registered.

4. Before venturing further we should not be oblivions of the fact, that the controversy had germinated when the services of the workman was dispensed with in 1990, and now we are in 2023, were the workman is still litigating for vindicating his rights under law.

5. The earlier reference, which was made, that was answered by the learned Labour Court by an award dated 26th November, 1997, whereby, the learned Labour Court, had directed, that the reference made by the State Government of treating the services to have been dispensed with on 30th June, 1992, was wrong, and rather it should have been w.e.f. 1st July, 1990.

6. This award rendered by the learned Labour Court on 26th November, 1997, had attained finality, qua the respondent/workman. The same was put to challenge by the workman by filing a Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2001 (M/S), Ashraf Ali Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.) and others, whereby, questioning the award, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had rendered a judgment on 5th July, 2005, whereby, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has issued a direction, that it would be appropriate for the respondent/workman, who was left with the liberty to reapproach the appropriate government for making a proper and correct reference, and if such a reference is made, the learned Labour Court was thereby directed to decide the reference expeditiously.

7. Yet again, the reference was made, the State Government has issued a G.O. No. 5057-62/Haldwani-CP22 (K)/2006 dated 28th August, 2006, whereby the learned Labour Court has made the following reference to be adjudicated in the exercise of its power under Section 4-K. The relevant question of reference is extracted hereunder :-

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh vQlj vyh iq= Jh vCnqy jgeku pqWxh eksgfjZj ¼nSfud osru Hkksxh½ dh lsok;sa fnukad 1&7&90 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ rFkk vU; fdl fdl fooj.k lfgr \**

8. It would be apt to observe at this juncture itself, that the earlier award and the earlier judgment of the Coordinate Bench, had attained finality qua the petitioner/local body, because the petitioner has not put a challenge, that the reference as permitted to be altered was confined to treating the date of removal from services from 30th June, 1992 to 1st July, 1990, the same was never subjected to challenge by the petitioner employer.

9. The matter was re-adjudicated by the learned Labour Court by an award dated 22nd October, 2011, as rendered in Adjudication Case No. 240 of 2008, which has been answered in favour of the workman/respondent, whereby he has been directed to be reinstated into the services, and it was held that the dispensation of services of the respondent/workman on 1st July, 1990, was bad in the eyes of law, and consequently, he was directed to be made