STATE OF HARYANA Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a classic example of State using its iron hands to suppress a poor employee. At an earlier point of time also, the respondent -workman had to go upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court to get justice. Despite having been granted relief, by making their own interpretations of the earlier orders passed, the officers of the government have again dragged him into litigation.

(2.) AS per facts on record, the respondent -workman was appointed as a Mali -cum -Chowkidar on daily wages in the month of January 1994. He was retrenched from service in the month of November 1996 without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act). After his removal from service, two workers, namely, Satbir Singh and Smt.Bir Mati were taken in service. By alleging violation of Sections 25 -F to 25 -H of the Act, the respondent raised an industrial dispute. Matter was sent to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide award dated 18.7.2003, the Labour Court at Ambala set aside termination of the respondent having been done in violation to the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. It was also noted that after his termination, other employees were taken into service, as referred to above. Vide order, referred to above, the respondent was reinstated with continuity in service and on payment of 50% back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement.

(3.) THE appellant -State filed CWP No.2341 of 2004 to lay challenge to the above award. Vide order dated 14.5.2004, above writ petition was admitted for hearing, however, payment of back wages was stayed. It is an admitted fact on record that before filing of above said writ petition, the workman was taken back in service on 12.1.2004. He continued to work as such throughout. Writ petition was allowed on 19.10.2007. Impugned award was quashed. Thereafter, the respondent -workman filed a review application which was allowed vide order dated 28.3.2008. In the said order, it was specifically stated that the respondent -workman had been working since 12.1.2014 under the award passed by the Labour Court. While admitting writ petition filed by the State, notice was issued only qua back wages. It was specifically noticed that notice was issued only qua the back wages and not qua the challenge to reinstatement in service of the respondent workman. By noting as above, order dated 19.10.2007 was recalled and above order was confined only to the extent of question of back wages. It was further stated that the workman shall get the same status as was held by him prior to the termination and not the status of regular employee.