VINOD KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed in the course of arguments that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days with the respondent-Institute. The finding of respondent No. 1 in the impugned order with regard to the petitioner having worked for 240 days has not been challenged by the respondent. In view of these facts, non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the finding of the Authority below to the same effect is also not in dispute.

(2.) The sole ground on which back wages of the petitioner have been refused is that on October 17, 1989 an offer was made to him by the management for his reinstatement in service provided he agrees to relinquish his back wages. Though the Authority below has observed that since the workman was a daily wager therefore, ends of justice would be met if 40% back wages are paid to him. A reading of the award leaves us with no doubt that the Presiding Officer appears to have been swayed by this offer made by the management for reinstatement of the petitioner.

(3.) The conspicuous object of granting compensation under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is to provide a sense of security of service on completion of a statutory period and to make the workman entitled for some compensation 'in view' of the service rendered, in order to settle again after he is removed from service. It is not disputed that compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, are mandatory and its non-compliance would render the order of removal from service as void. Making an offer to an employee having completed 240 days, to surrender his back wages inspite of the fact that the management has not complied with the provisions of law, would render the object of providing security of service and relief to the poor workman in case of his retrenchment, negatory.