RANUTROL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. NAVCHED SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the impugned award dated 27. 10. 2005, passed by the Presiding Officer, labour Court-IX Delhi in ID No. 850/2004 whereby, after closing the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 12. 01. 2004, the Labour Court granted reinstatement to respondent No. 1 with full back wages @ Rs. 1078/- per month. The said order dated 12. 01. 2004, as well as the terms of reference dated 5. 05. 1994 passed by the appropriate Government, and the notice dated 15. 11. 2006 issued by the Labour court for implementation of the award dated 27. 10. 2005, have also been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) A reference was sent by Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT, Delhi on 5. 05. 1994, vide reference No. F. 24 (4845)/93-Lab. /19301-06 pertaining to an industrial Dispute between the petitioner/management and respondent No. 1, Sh. Navched Singh and Sh. Vijay Ram in the following terms:-Whether the services of S/sh. Vijay Ram and Navched Singh have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.

(3.) IN their statement of claim, the workmen submitted that they were working with the management as helpers at Rs. 1,078/- per month respectively, and that their services were terminated w. e. f. 22. 03. 1993, without any reason or notice. The management contested the claim. According to it, Vijay Ram was a temporary worker, whose service was terminated after the expiry of the period of his employment under the terms of his contract; while Shri Navched Singh's employment was terminated because management had lost confidence in him after a departmental enquiry conducted by an independent person, in accordance with the principles of natural justice found that he had participated in an illegal and unjustified strike. A Rejoinder was filed by the workmen denying all allegations made in the written statement. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:-1]. Whether the workman was appointed for a fixed period 2]. Whether the proper inquiry has not been held 3]. As per the terms of reference. 4]. Relief.