STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SULTAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.9.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman/respondent no.1 and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice.

(2.) Learned State counsel would argue that the retrenchment order was passed on 31.3.1997 and the workman had sent the demand notice dated 26.6.2002 i.e. after an inordinate delay of more than 5 years and on this count alone, no relief could have been granted to the workman as no industrial dispute was existing. It has been contended that the workman had failed to discharge the onus of having completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months and in view thereof, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after to be referred as the Act). It is further contended that the retrenchment order dated 31.3.1997 and placed on record as Annexure P-1 would show that the workman had been directed to collect the retrenchment compensation from the office and which in turn reflects the intention of the employer as regards being ready and willing to pay the compensation and the same clearly amounts to compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) Learned State counsel has also argued that the workman/respondent no.1 was engaged on daily wage basis and his employment was de hors the rules inasmuch as no regular selection process had been 0followed which may be construed to be in confirmity with the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, even if, there be a violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the relief of reinstatement could not have been granted.