MAJOR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure P5), passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - has been awarded as compensation in place of reinstatement.

(2.) THE case of the workman was that he worked as a Gardener from 01.07.1986 to 19.01.1996, with the Sports Authority of India, Patiala and his services were terminated on 20.01.1996, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The Labour Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference as the workman had worked with the Sports Authority of India, Patiala and the State Government, being the appropriate Government, was competent to refer the industrial dispute to Labour Court. It was held that the Sports Authority of India was an industry and on issue No.4, whether the termination of the services of the workman was justified or not, it was held that there was an experience certificate, Exhibit W3, which showed that there was a relationship of employee and employer. The management witness, Jatinder Pal Singh admitted that he was a daily wager, on casual basis but he had failed to produce the relevant record, pertaining to the period in question and accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn by the Labour Court and it was held that the services of the workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act and accordingly, compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - was awarded.

(3.) A Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 09.09.2010, restricted the claim of the petitioner to the amount of compensation only. Thus, the sole question that now arises is as to what is the amount which the workman would be liable to get in lieu of his reinstatement, especially keeping in mind the fact that he was only a daily wager and had worked intermittently for a period of almost 10 years. Thus, this Court is of the view that he has to be adequately compensated by giving him lump sum compensation.