NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. RAM SWAROOP RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred assailing the award dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. 25/ID Act/1994 (Ref.) whereby the Labour Court in a reference which was made to it have answered the same in the affirmative and have passed an award against the petitioner for reinstatement of respondent No.1 in service with full backwages with continuity of service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.1 in the instant case had raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, who vide order of reference dated 24.03.1994 referred the dispute to the Labour Court with the following reference:

(3.) The Labour court registered the case as reference case No.25/ID Act/1994 (Ref.). The respondent No.1 entered before the Labour Court and filed his statement of claim whereby it was mentioned that he was infact appointed as Nakedar by the petitioner w.e.f. 11.05.1990 and he continued to work on the said post till 03.12.1992. Suddenly his services were without any notice or intimation abruptly stopped w.e.f. 03.12.1992. According to respondent No.1, he had continuously served the petitioner for a period of 2 years and 7 months during which period the services of the respondent No.1 was to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities in the department. The contention of the workmen was that termination of his service is bad in law and is against the principles of natural justice. In addition, the said sort of termination would amount to a stigmatic order, therefore, the order of termination deserves to be set aside. It was also contended that before discontinuance of service of respondent No.1, the petitioner have not cared to comply with the mandatory provisions of Chapter-V of Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as, he was not paid any retrenchment compensation neither was any notice issued or wages in lieu of notice paid to him and for all these reasons also the discontinuance of service of respondent No.1 would amount to an illegal termination. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.