The court held that the termination of the workman was illegal as it violated mandatory retrenchment procedures, entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8784 of 2002 and also against judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review / Recall Application No. 118006 of 2011 by allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent - employer and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court which substituted the same by issuing direction to the respondent - employer (for short "the employer") to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the appellant - workman. The direction issued by the High Court in its judgment further states that the amount shall either be paid through draft to the workman or deposited before the Labour Court within three months for immediate payment to the workman. In case of default, 12% interest per annum shall be payable on Rs.1,00,000/- after three months till actual payment / deposit / realisation.

3. However, the backdrop of industrial dispute between the parties is briefly stated hereunder to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.
It is the case of the appellant - workman that he was appointed as Labour Supervisor in the employer's factory on 30.12.1992 and he worked continuously in terms of S.25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act") in the said post till 28.7.1998 - the day on which his services were terminated. It is the case of the appellant - workman that he has worked for six calendar years from the date of his appointment till the termination of his service and he has rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in every calendar year before his termination. The respondent - employer terminated the services of appellant - workman on 27.7.1998 as per practice with the reason 'sanction expired'. The respondent - employer neither paid retrenchment compensation nor issued any notice or paid wages in lieu of the same to the appellant - workman as mandated under S.6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the U.P. I.D. Act"). The respondent - employer engaged the appellant - workman for work against a post which was permanent in nature but his appointment was made only for a temporary period from 1992 to 1998 with oblique motive to deprive his statutory rights. At the end of every working year, the workman was handed over a receipt of 'relieved from work' and after 4-6 days, he was again engaged for three or six months but without proper procedure and in this manner, he was continuously made to work for full one year and each time the annual increase in wages was shown in the fresh appointment letter. During the entire period of service of the appellant - workman with the respondent - employer, the management followed the process of annually terminating him from service and again reappointing him in the same post by assigning the same Badge No., ID No. in the same department of Construction Division with the marginal increase of salary and dearness allowance per month.

4. It is the further case of the appellant - workman that during the course of his employment wit