MUKESH KUMAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION NO. 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP No. 12589 of 2009 and CWP No. 12924 of 2009. The facts are taken from CWP No. 12589 of 2009. The workman is before this Court praying for quashing of the Labour Court award dated 22.10.2008 (P-4). Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 01.04.1994 on minimum wages fixed by the District Collector for the region. His services were terminated on 01.03.1995 and had put in about 11 months of service but had completed 240 days within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 05.11.1996 i.e. after 1 year and eight months. Industrial reference was made on 11.07.1997. The Labour Court in the impugned award has held that the workman satisfies the test of 240 days of service in the preceding 12 calendar months reckoned from the date of termination. The Labour Court further held that the present case was covered by exception (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F were not attracted. The reason given for holding that Section 2(oo)(bb) applied appears to be based on a false notion harboured by the labour court that a casual worker on daily wages would per se fall in the exception clause to retrenchment his employment coming to an end everyday. That finding in my view does not deserve to stand as it is not based on valid reason. Resultantly, the provisions of Section 25-F get attracted. But looking to the brief period spent in service of less than one year, this Court by interim order dated 04.03.2013 recorded the statement of Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana that the matter is covered by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr. v. Gitam Singh, 2013 2 SCT 30 Civil Appeal No. 8415 of 2009, decided on 31.01.2013. On this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to examine the judgment as he had not read it. The matter was adjourned to 12.03.2013.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

(3.) There is little doubt that the ratio of law laid down in Gitam Singh case would cover both these matters. Violation of Section 25-F per se would not automatically lead to reinstatement and several factors would enter the decision making process in moulding the relief. It would therefore be appropriate to further examine this matter as to what adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be granted and who should pay for it to serve the ends of justice.