STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAKESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 7.9.2000 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) on 7/8.9.2000 wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the various workmen mentioned in the head note of award at serial Nos.1 to 14 and reinstated them with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 14 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) were engaged as Mali -cum -Chowkidar by the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Management) on daily wages on or after 1.5.1995. Vide order dated 25.4.1998, the services of the workmen were dispensed with. Retrenchment compensation was offered to the workmen, but they had refused to accept the same. The compensation was sent to the workmen through registered letters. Respondents No. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 accepted the demand draft of compensation, but the remaining respondents refused to accept the same. The letters were received back un -delivered. Separate demand notices were served by the workmen on the Management. Consequently, the appropriate Government made 14 references under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Labour Court. The workmen filed the statement of claims. The Management filed the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the issue as per terms of reference. The reference was in the following terms : -

(3.) AFTER examining the entire evidence, the Labour Court has returned finding on the facts. The Labour Court has held that the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workmen in accordance with law. It has been held that the Management had failed to place any evidence before the Labour Court to the effect that the workmen had refused compensation. It was necessary for the Management to produce the person who had made the report of refusal. It was also held that mere calling in the office for receiving compensation is not compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act. After arriving at this conclusion, the Labour Court has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in case Roop Narain Shukla v. Presiding Officer, 1997(3) SCT 535, and also a decision of this Court rendered in case Raghubir Singh etc. v. Beas Construction Board etc., 1979 CLR 113. Mrs. Rathore has relied on another judgment of this Court rendered in case Pepsu Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others . In this judgment, it is clearly held as follows : -