HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited has filed the instant writ petition impugning the award dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Hisar whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.2 and he has been held entitled to re-instatement with continuity in service along with 25% backwages.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCorporation would submit that the workman-respondent No.2 who was engaged as a Watchman was found guilty of theft of 108 bags of raw wheat seeds from the premises of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Tohana that took place on 24.8.2012 and in which regard an enquiry had been conducted and after following due process of issuance of show cause notice dated 14.12.2012 and after consideration of the reply thereto, the services had been terminated by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation. It has been argued that termination of the workman-respondent No.2 was on account of dereliction of duty and after following due procedure and under such circumstances, the Labour Court has erred in directing re-instatement for noncompliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). It has further been argued that the workmanrespondent No.2 had not been engaged by following a regular selection process but had merely been engaged on daily wage basis and would be construed as a back door entrant into service and as such, was not entitled to the relief of re-instatement. Reliance has even been placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL v. Bhurumal, 2014 3 SCT 49 to contend 9 that even where termination of a daily wager is found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, re-instatement with back wages was not automatic and instead the workman could have been granted adequate compensation.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitionerCorporation at length and having perused the case paper book, this Court is of the considered view that no basis for interference in the impugned award is made out.