STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 03.03.2011 passed by POLC VII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 48/07 whereby the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back-wages till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that according to the respondent workman he was appointed as a baildar by the petitioner no.1 in the year 1997 and was drawing last wages of Rs.2860/- per month at the time of his termination in February, 2005. It is further his case that he continuously worked as a baildar and his name was duly recorded in muster roll of each month. He had completed the statutory period of 240 days without any break. In these circumstances, the respondent workman was entitled to be regularized at the status of workman as a regular employee. The respondent workman not only completed 240 days without any break but he had been continuously working since February, 2005 except for one or two breaks. As per policy of the petitioner management the employees working on muster roll or ad hoc employees are entitled to be regularized. In violation of the rules and regulations framed with regard to the service of the muster roll employee, the respondent workman was illegally terminated from his service on 22.02.2005. The respondent workman visited the office of the management requesting them to take him back in service but of no avail. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent workman filed CWP No.12372 of 2005 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2005 with the observations that the respondent workman has been terminated, he may approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, the respondent workman filed a petition before the Conciliation Officer having its office at Nimri Colony, Delhi. The petitioner management failed to appear before the Conciliation Officer as such the respondent workman was directed vide order dated 01.08.2006 to initiate proceedings against the petitioner management as such a petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, 'the Act') was filed by the respondent workman. The claim of the workman was contested by the management. Vide impugned award dated 03.03.2011, the termination of workman was held to be illegal as the same tantamount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. The management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act as neither any notice nor any notice pay in lieu thereof was given to the workman, no retrenchment compensation was paid as such the termination of services of the workman by the management was illegal. Accordingly, he was held to be entitled to reinstatement to the job with continuity of services with full back-wages. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr Vikram Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner management. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent workman. However, written synopsis has been filed by counsels for both the parties and the same were perused.