IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 2978 OF 2001 (Old No. 27209 of 1999) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ………Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. …..Respondents. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.1.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Adjudication Case No. 100 of 1998. 2. A dispute was referred, vide notification No. 4365- 70/M.R.I.R.(Sandarbh) C.P. No. 140(s)/97 dated 28.3.1998 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 100 /98. The reference was made in the following terms: “Whether the termination of services of Workman Sri Vipin Kumar Singh S/o late Sri Hareshwar Singh with effect from 11.6.1996 is justified and / or legal, if not, to what benefit/relief the concerned employee is entitled to and to what extent?” 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was working as a daily wage labourer from 5.10.1992. His services were terminated on 11.6.1996 without giving him prior notice. The case of the respondent no. 3 before the labour Court was that without considering the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 6P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services were terminated. The Labour Court, after considering the material available on record, found that the respondent no. 3 is the workman of the petitioner and, therefore, ordered for reemployment being a daily wager. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, petitioner / Employer has preferred this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record as well as the impugned award. 5. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent no. 3 for cleaning the buses purely on contractual basis. A written statement was filed by the Corporation / Employer to the effect that there was no relationship of employer or employee between the Corporation and Respondent No. 3. On Behalf of the Employer, one Sri H.D. Kukreti has given a statement that the respondent no. 3 was appointed to clean the buses @ Rs. 2/- per Bus and was being paid per month on the basis of the number of cleaning of the buses every day. He has admitted before the Labour Court that no written contact was there. On the other hand, the workman has examined 3 himself before the Labour Court. He has stated that apart from cleaning the buses, the workman was entrusted other works also. 6. The daily wager also falls within the definition of the workman. It is settled position of law that a daily wager is also a workman within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1530 of 2001 (M/S) State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, decided on 24.10.2002. In the instant case, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner did not file the agreement of written contract between the parties deliberately and the Labour Court rightly drawn adverse interference against the petitioner holding that the respondent no. 3 workman on daily wage. No pay in lieu of retrenchment was given to the respondent no. 3 and, as such, there was violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is settled law that in case termination order is passed without following the provisions of Section 6N the termination is null and void. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour