Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Sri Ashok Khare further submits that the payment of compensation has been broken into the length of service rendered in seasonal capacity and permanent capacity. Whereas for seasonal employment 7 or 8 days salary, and for permanent employment 15 days salary, for one completed year of service has been worked out. This distinction, according to him, is irrational and contrary to Section 6N of the Act. He also submits that the closure of these units is not in accordance with the Section 6W of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there was no prior permission taken from the State Government for closure. He relied upon the U. P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government and Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991 for their absorption in any post or service under the Government. These rules cover the petitioners appointed prior to 1.10.1986. Sri Khare has also challenged the justification of cut off date of 1.10.1986 in these Rules. He states that it has an apparent relationship with the regularisation of ad hoc employees of the State Government, which has been subsequently extended to 30.6.1998 and thus, according to him, the cut off date in the Absorption Rule of 1991 should also be read as 30.6.1998 instead of 1.10.1986. He has relied upon judgment in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava v. State of U. P., (1999) 3 AWC 1956, which has been confirmed by a Division Bench on 19.11.2001 and against which the Special Leave Petition has been rejected on 18.3.2002, a judgment of this Court in Devi Shanker Pandey and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1994 (1) AWC 454, (1994) 1 HVD 422.

21. Coming to the last question of petitioners' absorption as retrenched employees of the Public Corporation in any Government service under the Absorption Rules of 1991, I find that those petitioners who were appointed prior to 1.10,1986, have a right to apply for retrenchment certificate and to claim appointment from the State Government. These Absorption Rules of 1991 have been repealed, but since the petitioners who were appointed prior to 1.10.1986 were retrenched prior to the repeal, they have a right to be considered for absorption in Government service in accordance under these Rules. However, I do not find any substance in the submission of counsel for petitioner that the cut off date given in the Rules of 1991 should be read as 30.6.1998 on the ground that the cut off date in the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (Outside the Perview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended by its third Amendment Rules, 2001, has been extended. Both these rules operate in different fields and have different object and purpose to be achieved. In any case after the Rules of 1991 have been repealed, no such exercise can be undertaken by the Court to grant relief to those employees who were appointed after 1.10.1986, The writ petitions in respect of the employees who were appointed before 1.10.1986, for their absorption as retrenched employees in some other services by the State Government is consequently allowed. They will be entitled to consideration under the Absorption Rules of 1991, if they accept the retrenchment compensation and obtain a certification in this regard from the Corporation. If they want to challenge the retrenchment notices under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, their rights for absorption as retrenched employees under the Rules of 1991 will come into force, only if retrenchment is found to be valid in the industrial adjudication.