VINOD KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -workman has approached this Court challenging Award dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure P -2), whereby, the Labour Court instead of ordering reinstatement of his services, granted the compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - along with interest @ 6% per annum till the payment.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was appointed as Mali on 26.05.1995 on daily wages in the organization of respondents No.2 to 4. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated on 3.5.1996, thereafter, he raised a demand notice which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Award dated 27.10.1999 was passed in his favour ordering reinstatement of the workman by holding that the termination of his services was not justified and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The workman was reinstated back into service by the respondent -Management and thereafter, his services were again terminated on 27.01.2001. The workman again raised demand notice which was referred to the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer for adjudication. After raising of demand notice, the workman was again allowed to join duty on 23.8.2002, but his services were again terminated on 03.03.2003 without applying the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as' the I.D. Act') and the workman was drawing his monthly salary @ Rs. 3500/ - per month.

(3.) WITH the aforementioned facts, the workman has again raised demand notice and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute between the parties to the lis (i.e. workman and Management). The Labour Court found that the Institute was not functional since 2000, therefore, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement of service and thus, granted a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -.