GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 27.7.2010 wherein respondent No. 1 awarded compensation of Rs. 24,000/- instead of reinstating the petitioner-workman in service. The petitioner was appointed as Sewer Helper on 1.1.1996 by the respondent-management. He worked continuously from 1.1.1996 to 30.12.2001 with the respondent department. After he had put in about five years of service, his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") as no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Aggrieved by his termination, he raised industrial dispute. On a reference the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (for short, 'the Labour Court') vide his award dated 27.7.2010 granted compensation of Rs. 24,000/- instead of reinstating the petitioner-workman in service. The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid award by filing the present writ petition before this court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as such under administrative control of different Junior Engineers, while completing 240 days in each calendar year. But the respondent-management on 31.12.2001 did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties saying that his services are no more required. He further submitted that the respondent management had not issued any prior notice or paid retrenchment compensation, hence violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, G and H of the Act. He further contended that the respondent-management has retained juniors and also appointed many fresh hands but no opportunity of employment has been offered to the petitioner. He had worked continuously from 1.1.1996 to 30.12.2001 with utmost sincerity to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. It was further submitted that the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had worked with the respondent management from 1.1.1996 to 30.12.2001 and he had completed 240 days in the twelve months preceding his alleged termination on 31.12.2001, but has erred in partly allowing the reference and only granting compensation of Rs. 24,000/-. Once it was proved that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service during the preceding 12 months, resultant termination in violation of Section 25-F of the Act should have been held to be bad with consequential relief of re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. In support of his claim, reference was made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 1 SCT 675; Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010 3 SCT 319; Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 1 SCT 725 and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 3 SCT 139.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that the petitioner workman has never been engaged by the respondent management for any work. Since no appointment letter was ever issued to the petitioner, the question of giving notice does not arise. The prayer is for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.