SUSHILA SHARMA Vs. PAWAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated September 2, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court on a reference dated March 29, 2000 made to the said Court to adjudicate upon the following issue:

(2.) Under the impugned award, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the petitioner herein has retrenched the respondent workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') illegally, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and thus termination of the services of the workman on August 27, 1999 is ab initio illegal and unjustified. However, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that it is not a fit case for reinstatement of the workman. In lieu thereof, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment.

(3.) The brief facts relevant for the purposes of appreciating the impugned award are that the petitioner is the owner of a bus which was plying on route No. 33 under the kilometer scheme of the Delhi Transport Corporation. The workman was in the employment of the petitioner with effect from November 12, 1998 on wages of Rs. 4,500/- per month, besides Rs. 300/- as daily expenses. The management neither issued any appointment letter to the workman nor maintained any attendance register. It was claimed by the workman that he was not paid wages for the period from November 12, 1998 to August 27, 1999 besides overtime for that period, despite his repeated verbal requests. The services of the workman were terminated from August 27, 1999 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As a result, the workman served a demand notice (Exhibit WW1/1) dated September 11, 1999 on the management for amicable settlement of the matter. Although the said demand notice was received by the management (vide postal receipt, Exhibit WW 1/2 to WW 1/3) and the management admitted receipt thereof, the said demand notice was not replied to. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed and pursuant thereto, the workman raised an industrial dispute whereunder, he sought his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.