STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JASMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 27.07.2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No. 1-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages on coming to a conclusion that the termination of the service of the workman was illegal for noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Labour Court has wrongly counted the days during which the workman has performed duties with Sub-Division Nos. 8 and 6 together. He contends that each Sub-Division is an independent entity and is under administrative control of different Executive Engineers. The appointing authority in both the Sub-Divisions being different, the days respondent No. 1-workman has performed duties as a daily wager with Sub-Division No. 8 cannot be counted for calculating the days put in by respondent No. 1-workman in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination by counting the days put in by him in Division No. 6. In support of this contention, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal, 2007 2 SCC(L&S) 255. On this basis, he contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1-workman contends that the Labour Court has rightly proceeded to calculate the days put in by respondent No. 1-workman with the petitioner-Management. She contends that the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. III, PWD (B&R) Karnal is the overall Incharge of Sub-Division Nos. 8 and 6 and, therefore, the period of service rendered by respondent No. 1-workman with the petitioners had rightly been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while counting the period of days the workman-respondent No. 1 has put in service with the petitioner-Management in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination. She, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.