STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Labour Court, Panipat directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages to the extent of 50% from the date of demand notice i.e.5.12.2003.

(2.) A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that vide demand notice dated 5.12.2003, the workman raised an industrial dispute that he was working from July, 1995 and was retrenched on 1.4.1997 without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Resultantly the matter was referred to the Labour Court. In the written statement the plea taken was that there was delay of 8 years in raising the demand by the workman since he had worked from 1995 to 1997 and had been retrenched by a proper procedure under Section 25 -F of the Act. Notice dated 31.3.1997 regarding his retrenchment was served asking him to collect compensation but he never came, therefore, he is not entitled for any back wages or reinstatement. It was submitted that he was engaged on daily wages and working on temporary basis on the muster roll and worked from July, 1995 to 31.3.1997 with breaks.

(3.) AFTER examining the pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration the statement of workman who had appeared as WW -1 and the statement of Rajeev Gupta, Sub Divisional Engineer, who had appeared as MW -1, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that no draft/voucher of notice pay was prepared on 31.3.1997 when the notice Ex. MW1/1 was sent and therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court to hold that once the compensation was offered subsequently, the respondents had violated the provisions of Section 25 -F(a) and 25 -F (b) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010 5 SCC 497. Accordingly reinstatement was ordered.