S.B. PACKAGINGS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P7), passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby, respondent No. 2 was reinstated in service on his previous post, with continuity of service and 30% back wages, from the date of the demand notice, i.e., 30.07.2002 (Annexure P1). A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that respondent No. 2 -workman took the plea that he had been appointed on 29.08.1999 as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and was getting Rs. 3200/ - per month as salary and he worked upto 18.07.2002. His services were terminated without issuing any show cause notice and without assigning any reason and the mandatory provisions were not adhered to under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). On the dispute being referred, claim statement was filed before the Labour Court on the same set of allegations and in reply, the petitioner -Management took the plea that he was not a workman as he has been serving as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and was working as supervisory officer over the junior Electricians and thus, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court itself was under challenge. By replication, the workman claimed that he fell under the definition given under Section 2(s) of the Act and was not working in the capacity of supervisory officer. On merits, the Management took the plea that it was a case of absence as he did not rejoined his duty despite being informed.

(2.) THE Labour, Court framed the following issues:

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that vide CM No. 11196 of 2010 (Annexure P8) for placing on record the additional evidence, appointment letter dated 29.08.1999 has been placed on record in which it has been mentioned that respondent No. 2 had power to suspend the services of subordinate staff and initiate inquiry against them and he had workers working under him whose number may increase or decrease. In the application, it was averred that the petitioner had inadvertently not produced the record before the Labour Court and that it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. The said application was allowed on 25.07.2013 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following order was passed: