STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This case has been called twice. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. I proceed to record the judgment.

(2.) Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 10th April, 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman and he was reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The workman raised the dispute under section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming that he joined the service of the respondent with effect from 1st April, 1981 at a monthly salary of Rs. 450.00. His services were illegally terminated by the respondents on 1st Jan., 1984 without serving him any notice and without holding any enquiry. The respondents contested the case before the Labour Court and stated that the workman did not work for adequate period and as such was not entitled for the benefit of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act. The Labour Court framed issues and granted opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and finally vide its award dated 10th April, 1987 answered the reference in favour of the workman giving rise to this petition.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside as the workman was not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Act and in any case the full back wages could not have been granted to the workman. Both, these contentions are without any merit. The learned Labour Court while passing the award entirely relied upon the statement of WW1 to prove the case of the workman. It was held as under: