CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. IQBAL SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No. 14716 of 1993 and CWP No. 3805 of 1994. One is Chief Engineer, Punjab PWD B & R, Patiala v. Iqbal Singh and another. Second is Iqbal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. Both these writ petitions have been filed against the same award. CWP No. 14716 of 1993 has been filed by the management, challenging the grant of compensation of Rs. 16,200/- instead of granting reinstatement to respondent-workman. CWP No. 3805 of 1994 has been filed by the workman claiming the reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. Facts of the case are hardly in dispute. It was the case of respondent-workman that before his services were terminated on 30.08.1988, he had already rendered service for 1068 days as Laboratory Assistant with the petitioner-management. It was further alleged by him that his services were illegally terminated without issuing any notice for one month or salary in lieu thereof. No retrenchment compensation was paid. He raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings failed and industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication. Both the parties led their respective evidence.

(2.) After hearing the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the Learned Labour Court came to conclusion that it was not the case for reinstatement. Instead of directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman, the petitioner management was directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 16,200/- towards compensation to the respondent-workman by way of impugned award dated 20.05.1993 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved against the impugned award, petitioner-management has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 30.11.1993 passed by Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition, civil miscellaneous application No. 4494 of 1994 was moved by the petitioner-management, seeking stay of the impugned order. However, it seems that treating the impugned award to be an award of reinstatement, operation thereof was stayed, subject to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide order dated 05.05.1994. The reply was filed by the respondent-workman to the above said miscellaneous application and the same was heard and decided vide order dated 09.09.1994, in the following terms: