JASWANT SINGH Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded to the petitioner-workman on account of the fact that he had worked with the respondents from 15.8.1986 to 29.6.1993 by the Labour Court, Patiala. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the case of the workman was that he had joined on 15.8.1986 as Beldar with the Malikpur Construction Sub-Division No. 4 and his services were terminated on 30.6.1993. He had been transferred in the year 1991 to the Tunneling Sub-Division No. 1, Ranjit Sagar-Dam Construction Irrigation Department, Shahpur Kandi where he had worked till the said date and had fallen ill and remained under treatment upto 30.10.2004. He was informed by the management that his name has been struck off from the rolls vide 'letter dated 8.11.1995 and it thus amounted to retrenchment and the procedure for retrenchment had not been followed. He had been approaching the respondents but all in vain and the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have been violated. Resultantly the industrial dispute was raised. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Patiala was also objected to since the workman had worked at Gurdaspur. The defence taken was that he had remained absent willfully from 30.6.1993 and had been informed regarding his absence by registered notice dated 13.9.1993 and asked to resume his duties otherwise his services would be terminated as per rules. In accordance with the certified standing order applicable on work charge employees the services were terminated as no reply was received regarding letter dated 13.9.1993. The work of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project had been completed and had been dedicated to the nation on 4.3.2001 and the numerous staff of the different category had also been declared surplus.

(2.) The Labour Court after noticing the evidence of the parties held that the services of the workman were terminated due to alleged misconduct without issuing of charge-sheet or holding any enquiry and he had worked for 240 days and therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. However, on account of delay since the dispute was raised only in the year 2006 instead of directing reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 40,00 was ordered to be paid.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement once such a finding had been recorded.