STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 13.12.2011 passed by learned Labour Court, Panipat, thereby directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as temporary part -time sweeper on 19.01.1998. She was not allowed to continue after 30.06.2003. No regular post of part -time sweeper was ever sanctioned by the competent authority. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute vide her demand notice (Annexure P -1) and petitioner -Management filed its written statement, vide Annexure P -2. Reconciliation proceedings failed and the dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court. Parties led their respective evidence. After hearing the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P - 3), directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 21.07.2003. Hence, this writ petition, at the instance of the Management.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) HOWEVER , learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar) : 2008 (1) SLR 722, full bench judgment of this Court in (Gobind v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another (2012) ILR 2 637), a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Indian Bank through its Deputy General Manager v. Smt. Maya Devi and another), C.W.P. No. 11368 of 2007, decided on 27.08.2008 and judgment dated 18.03.2011 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 20443 of 2006, (The S.D.O. (OP), Sub Division, D.H.B.V.N.L., Jhoju v. Jagdish Rai and another), contends that respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled for any benefit under the provisions of Chapter V -A & V -B of the I.D. Act. He further submits that since the learned Labour Court has misdirected itself while directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages, the impugned award was liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned award by allowing the present writ petition.