UNION TERRITORY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two identical writ petitions bearing CWP No. 25131 of 2013 (Union Territory Chandigarh and another v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another) and CWP No. 25132 of 2013 (Union Territory Chandigarh and another v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another), filed by the management against the similar awards passed by the learned Labour Court thereby allowing the reference in favour of the respondents -workmen directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No. 25131 of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded on erroneous approach while passing the impugned award. She further submits that respondent -workman failed to discharge the initial onus which was admittedly on him to establish on record that he had completed 240 days of service during preceding twelve calendar months on the date of his alleged termination of service. She further submits that since the learned Labour Court did not record any finding about the alleged violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act for short) at the hands of the petitioner -management, the reference was bound to be dismissed. Finally, she prays for allowing the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned award.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case warranting any interference at the hands of this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

(3.) THIS contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only to be noted to be rejected. The reason is that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is neither supported by any provisions of law contained in the ID Act. nor any judge made law. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.