KITAB SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 2153, 2154, 2983, 3574 and 3575 of 1987. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2153 and 2154 of 1987 have been filed by Kitab Singh and Ved Singh workmen against part of the award made by the Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which they have been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, whereas the other three writ petitions have been filed by the Management - Society for setting aside the award made by the Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the termination of the services of the workmen were held to be illegal. Since in all these five writ petitions common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are being disposed of by this common order. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petitions No. 2153 and 3575 of 1987.

(2.) KITAB Singh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 2153, of 1987, was appointed as Salesman on 27.5.1981 by the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited (Confed), Chandigarh, respondent No.2, on a consolidated salary of Rs.350/ - per month. On 19.10. 1982, respondent No.2 transferred the services of the petitioner -workman to Kohla Cooperative Agriculture Credit Society Ltd. Kohla, respondent No.3. At that time, the petitioner workman was told that he was being sent on deputation to respondent No.3 and he shall remain employee of respondent No.2 on the same terms and conditions. Ultimately, respondent No.3, vide its order dated 18.5.1983, terminated the services of the petitioner workman without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). The petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the appropriate Govt, to the Labour Court, Rohtak for its adjudication. Originally, the reference was made against respondent No.2 only, but subsequently on an application made by the petitioner workman, respondents No.3 and 4 were also impleaded as it was deemed necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Respondent No.2 and respondents No.3 and 4 filed separate written statements.

(3.) IN its written statement, respondent No.2 stated that under the order of the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Haryana, all the retail outlet of respondent No.2 alongwith their staff were transferred to respondents No.3 and 4 and thereupon the petitioner workman joined services with respondent No.3. According to the written statement filed by respondents No.3 and 4, it was alleged that the petitioner workman was appointed purely on temporary basis vide its resolution on 19.10.1982 and his services were terminated on 18.5.1983. Since he had not completed 240 days in its employment, therefore, the question of complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act did not arise. It was further alleged that since the respondent Society was running in heavy losses, therefore, it was decided to close its retail outlet and consequently, the petitioner workman was retrenched.