VINOD KUMAR Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners were employed as Beldars on 16 th October, 1989 by the Respondent No.2. On 14 th January, 1990 the services of the Petitioners were terminated. On a dispute being raised the following terms of reference were sent for adjudication:

(2.) The Petitioners filed their statements of claim, inter alia, stating that they were employees of the Horticulture Department as Beldars with effect from 16 th October, 1989 and their services were terminated with effect from 14 th January, 1990 without any reason. They sought the relief of reinstatement with full back wages on the ground that the termination of their services was illegal and unjustified. Despite notice, no written statement was filed by the Respondent No.2 nor did anybody appear for them to cross-examine the workmen. Thus, there is no evidence led by the Respondent No.2 and the evidence of the Petitioners have gone unrebutted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that once the learned Trial Court held that the services of the Petitioners were terminated illegally, it ought to have passed an order of reinstatement with back wages. In the alternative it is prayed that since the compensation awarded is too low, the same be enhanced. Reliance is placed on Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajulu, 2009 2 SCC(L&S) 368; Management of Garrison Engineer Vs. Bachhu Singh, 2010 115 DRJ 576 and the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Anr. W.P.(C) 6024/1999 decided on 25 th August, 2011.