J U AKHTAR Vs. MGMT OF MARKFED AGRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/workman claimed that he was appointed with M/s Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited as a senior technician to maintain helicopters with effect from 13th July, 1981. The Markfed Agro Aviation Unit is stated to be one of the units owned by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. On the 2nd April, 1987 the petitioner apparently received one month's notice for termination of his services which he assailed by raising a statement of claim before the conciliation authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As conciliation was not fruitful, the appropriate government by an order passed on 7th January, 1988 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator.

(2.) The industrial adjudication culminated in an award dated 20th April, 2002 wherein the industrial adjudicator held that the petitioner was a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further that the action of the management in termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal, unjustified and in violation of the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial adjudicator also rejected the plea raised by a witness of the respondent in his cross examination that the services of the petitioner had been validly terminated and the plea taken by the authorised representative of the respondent to the effect that due to financial losses, the unit had been closed down. It was noticed that no such plea was taken in the written statement nor any issue thereon was sought or framed or any evidence in this behalf was placed before the industrial adjudicator. After so holding, the industrial adjudicator further recorded thus:

(3.) It appears that after the publication of the award, the respondent has quantified the compensation awarded by the industrial adjudicator which according to it became payable and has paid the same to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such acceptance was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the present writ petition and the respondent can derive no benefit therefrom.