LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-138

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

Decided On September 30, 2013
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another Appellant
V/S
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, at the instance of the management, is directed against the award dated 16.11.1992 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Labour Court, thereby directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back wages. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Petitioner-management engaged the respondent-workman as Beldar with effect from 2.4.1985. Although there was no complaint about the work and conduct of the respondent-workman, yet his services were terminated with effect from 1.8.1987. No notice was issued nor any salary in lieu thereof was paid. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the respondent-workman. The industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman. Conciliation proceedings failed and consequently, the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. Parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-management illegally terminated the services of the respondent-workman in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short). Reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages was ordered, vide impugned award dated 16.11.1992. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and operation of the impugned award was stayed, subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.2.1994, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. That is how this court is seized of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that during the pendency of this petition and in compliance of the order dated 22.10.1993 passed by the Division Bench of this court, the petitioner-management has been complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act.