ORDER : Tarun Agarwala, J. Twenty five workers raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was in two parts, namely- (1) Whether the employers were justified in not giving 25 workers the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200, and (2) Whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 11.7.2006, if not, to what relief the workers are entitled to? Before the Labour Court the workers contended that they were appointed as Switchman/Linesman since 1990 and were being paid wages on a daily rated basis and had not been made permanent. The workers contended that they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and were being paid a lump sum @ Rs. 950/- per month whereas they were entitled to be given the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 which was given to the workers who were performing similar nature of work as that being performed by the regular workers. It was further alleged, that they raised a demand through the Union and when the Union exerted pressure upon the employers, the services of the workers were arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 11.7.2006. It was contended that having worked continuously for a long period of time, the action of the employers in terminating their services were wholly arbitrarily and in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The employers, who is the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur filed their written statement contending that the appointments are made under the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 and that the workers in question are not the workers of the Nagar Nigam and that they had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It was contended that whenever a permanent Linesman or a Switchman goes on a leave for more than ten days, then the Nagar Nigam is obliged to employ persons on daily rated basis. It was contended that, as and when a permanent worker goes on leave, the workers in question are appointed and that too for not more than ten days in a month. It was contended that for the days the workers were appointed they were paid the wages. 3. In the light of these assertions, the Nagar Nigam contended that there is no 'master and servant' relationship. It was contended that for the days the workers were appointed they were paid the wages. 3. In the light of these assertions, the Nagar Nigam contended that there is no 'master and servant' relationship. The workers are not "workmen" as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act nor the Nagar Nigam is an "industry" as defined under the said Act. 4. In rejoinder, the workers submitted that they have worked for a long period of time ranging from 7 to 20 years and though they have worked continuously, they were only paid wages for 10-15 days in a month, inspite of the fact that 38 posts were vacant, which have not been filled by the employers for reasons best known to them. 5. Before the Labour Court, the workers have moved an application for production of certain records, namely, for production of the Attendance and Payment register from 1990 onwards and also details of the leave applications given by the permanent Switchman and Linesman as well as other documents. This application was opposed by the employers alleging that the production of records have nothing to do with the controversy involved. It was further contended that the documents sought were very old, which are neither available nor traceable and that it was not possible to submit a list of substitute Switchman/Linesman and payment bill. In paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, the employer contended that no order was passed by the Labour Court on the application 17-D of the Workers for production of records. 6. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the workman without giving notice and retrenchment compensation was wholly illegal and, therefore, they were liable to be reinstated in service. The Labour Court also held, that the workers were not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200, inasmuch as, the said pay scale was only given to regular workers whereas the petitioners were never made regular in the services of the petitioner. The Labour Court further directed the employers to process the case of the workers for regularization of their services after their retrenchment. 7. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the present writ petition. The Labour Court further directed the employers to process the case of the workers for regularization of their services after their retrenchment. 7. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the present writ petition. The workers in question also being aggrieved by the award denying the back wages and pay scale, have filed two separate writ petitions. 8. Since the award was not implemented and the petitioners were not reinstated the workers filed an application u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act praying that they are entitled to be given the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 in terms of the award alleging that the employers were required to regularize their services and since their services have not been regularized they are entitled to the pay scale of a regular workman. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, issued a recovery certificate for the recovery of the amount calculating it on the basis of the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. The employers, being aggrieved by the said recovery certificate have filed separate writ petitions. All these writ petitions have been connected and are being decided together. 9. Heard Sri Y.S. Sachan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss. Bushra Maryam and Sri Rohan Gupta the learned counsel for the workers. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the award of the Labour Court is a non-speaking order and cannot be sustained. The relevant facts have not been considered. The issue before the Labour Court was whether the workers have put into 240 days of work in a calendar year or not. According to the workers, they were working continuously on a month to month basis but were being paid wages only for 10 to 15 days. The workers have deposed to this extent before the Labour Court and to a certain degree have discharged their burden. To buttress their contention the workers had filed an application for summoning of the records, inasmuch as, the best evidence by which the workers could prove their case was in the possession of the employers. No order apparently was passed by the Labour Court on this application. Consequently, the burden upon the workmen was not fully discharged. 11. To buttress their contention the workers had filed an application for summoning of the records, inasmuch as, the best evidence by which the workers could prove their case was in the possession of the employers. No order apparently was passed by the Labour Court on this application. Consequently, the burden upon the workmen was not fully discharged. 11. On the other hand, the employers contended that the workers were working as substitutes and as and when a permanent workman went on a leave, the workers in question were given the work for a limited period of 10 days and for that period the workers were paid. The burden to prove this allegation made by the employers was also upon to the employers, which they have failed to discharge by not producing any document. 12. In the light of the existing scenario, the Labour Court committed a manifest error in holding that the workers were working since long without giving any specific finding as to whether the workers were working for 240 days in a calendar year, or whether they were working for 30 days in a month or whether they were working for 10 to 15 days in a month. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, the award of the Labour Court is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Writ Petition No. 37342 of 2011 is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to redecide the matter after hearing all the parties concerned within four months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order, It would be open to the workers to file an appropriate application directing the Labour Court to decide the application of the workers for production of the documents, which are in possession of the employers. The Labour Court will decide the mater in the light of the observations made aforesaid. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions filed by the workers are not required to be adjudicated and are disposed of since the matter is being remitted to the Labour Court. The issue with regard to the pay scale etc. will again be considered afresh by the Labour Court. 15. The Labour Court did not grant any pay scale and only directed the employers to consider the regularization of the workers upon their reinstatement in service. The issue with regard to the pay scale etc. will again be considered afresh by the Labour Court. 15. The Labour Court did not grant any pay scale and only directed the employers to consider the regularization of the workers upon their reinstatement in service. Since the same was not done, the workers moved an application for computation of wages u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, on the basis of pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200, which has been allowed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and a recovery certificate had been issued. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion, that the recovery certificate is patently erroneous and the amount could not have been calculated since the services of the petitioners had not been regularized. The application of the petitioners, if any, could have been for payment of their wages, on the basis of the work which they were performing. Since the same was not done, the entire proceedings initiated by the workers before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was patently erroneous and could not be sustained. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, against the recovery certificates, are allowed and the recovery certificates are quashed. 17. The Court is constrained to observe that the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the services of the workers. The employers filed a writ petition, but, no interim order was granted. Consequently, the award was required to be implemented. The employers did not reinstate the workers nor paid the wages. In view of the aforesaid, the workers are entitled for payment of cost as well as for payment of last drawn wages till the pendency of the dispute decided by the Labour Court. 18. Accordingly, the Court directs the petitioner-employer to pay last drawn wages to each of the workers, till the dispute is not decided by the Labour Court. Alternatively, it would be open to the petitioners to take work from the workers in question and pay them wages till the dispute is not decided by the Labour Court. 19. The petitioners will also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost to each of the workers in question within four weeks from today. The original record, which was placed before the Court, shall be returned to the authority concerned.