JAT EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGISTERED) ROHTAK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure P1) whereby the Labour Court, Rohtak has ordered reinstatement with continuity in service along with 50% back wages, from the date of demand notice dated 26.07.2004.

(2.) A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that as per the demand notice (Annexure P2), the workman was appointed by the Management on 01.04.1990, on the post of Chowkidar, on daily wage basis and he served with the petitioner -college at the boys hostel. He had completed more than 240 days of service in a preceding calendar year and his services were terminated on 29.11.2003, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). Persons junior to him, reference of which is given in para No.5 of the demand notice, were retained. On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, claim statement was filed on similar grounds on 27.01.2006 (Annexure P3).

(3.) REPLICATION was filed to the said written statement, reiterating the claim. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence, which was in the form of the statement of the workman, who had appeared as WW2 and Raj Singh, Clerk and Ishwar Singh Dalal, Retired Principal of the said college, who had appeared as WW1 & WW3, respectively, came to the conclusion that the record was not produced by the petitioner -Management. It had only brought pay rolls for the months of June, 2001 to October, 2001 and January, 2002 and not produced the entire summoned record, as the same was not available and a statement was made that it cannot be produced even in future. Accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn against the Management and it was held that the workman had worked for a continuous period of 240 days, in the preceding 12 months in a calendar year and his termination on 29.11.2003, without serving any notice upon him nor granting any compensation, was in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. Accordingly, the workman was held entitled for reinstatement, with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages, from the date of serving of the demand notice, i.e., 26.07.2004.