HARYANA ROADWAYS DEPOT Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the award dated 3rd September, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder it was held that the termination of services of the respondent workman by the petitioner management was illegal and unjustified being in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as neither any notice was served on the respondent workman, nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him, and therefore, the workman was held to be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) Before proceeding with the case on merits, it is appropriate to record the facts of the case in brief. The respondent workman was appointed as a Helper/Chowkidar by the petitioner management at its Delhi depot on 9th July, 1982 and continued to work at such post for a period of about five years, when his services were terminated by the petitioner management on 10th September, 1987. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute against the termination of his services and filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court. In reply, the petitioner management stated that the respondent workman was appointed only in the year 1985, and since he had started absenting himself from work, his services were not extended beyond 10th September, 1987. On the basis of the material placed on record and the pleadings of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that there was no abandonment of job by the respondent workman and since it was found that he had worked with the petitioner management for 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination of his services, the petitioner management could not have terminated his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. By the impugned award, the termination was held to be illegal for such non-compliance and the respondent workman was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that although the petitioner management had filed an interim application seeking stay of the operation of the impugned award, vide order dated 16th December, 1999, operation of the award was stayed only so far as it related to back wages, but not with regard to reinstatement. As a result, the respondent workman was reinstated by the petitioner management in the year 1999, during the pendency of the present writ petition. Therefore, as on date, challenge to the impugned award is limited to the extent of the grant of full back wages to the respondent workman. It may also be noted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent workman expired in the year 2004 leaving behind his widow, who has been impleaded as his legal representative.