HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HSIDC) LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has questioned the award dated May 21, 2004, made by the Labour Court, Hisar, answering the reference in favour of the workman to the effect that the termination of the service of the workman was neither in order nor justified, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits along with 25% back wages.

(2.) The facts to be noticed are that the workman was employed as Peon-cum- chowkidar on May 13, 1996 and allegedly he worked continuously upto 2.3.2000 when his services were terminated by way of retrenchment. The plea is that the said order is void, illegal, without authority, without jurisdiction, unreasonable and against law and facts, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and is in utter violation of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the workman had not been given any opportunity of hearing Further, the retrenchment compensation given to him was neither adequate nor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also the case that the workers junior o him have been retained in service and that the services of 21 other workmen similarly situated have been regularised.

(3.) The claim of the workman had been contested on the ground that the workman was engaged as Peon-cum-Chowkidar on daily wages basis at D.C. Rates, for a short duration, in a casual vacancy, on the specific condition that he shall stand disengaged when no longer required or as and when regular substitute joins as Peon-cum-Chowkidar at the Branch Office, Hisar. It is also the plea of the management that in this regard sanction from the head office had been obtained from time to time for short durations to enable the workman to continue in the job pursuant to the aforesaid stipulations. The muster roll is indicative of the terminal breaks from 30.5.1996 to 29.2.2000 and that he has been paid his wages for the days he worked. It is also the plea that upon the joining of regular substitute namely Rajinder Parsad with effect from 10.1.2000, the workman became surplus and there was no need to continue him on the said post. He had been terminated pursuant to the stipulation contained as his services were no longer required. It is further pleaded that procedure under Section 25-F of the Act had been duly complied with and that the compensation of Rs. 7205/- had been paid at the time of termination by way of retrenchment. It is the stand of the management that no provisions of the Act have been violated nor the orders suffer from any rigor as claimed by the workman.