SANJAY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of award passed by the Labour Court dated 2.9.2016 (Annexure P-3).

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the month of February 2000. His services were terminated on 1.1.2002. Feeling aggrieved by his termination, he raised industrial dispute which was decided in favour of the petitioner on 20.08.2007 whereby respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service alongwith back wages and all service benefits. The respondents while implementing the award insisted the petitioner for giving up back wages so that petitioner would be reinstated. Consequently, petitioner was compelled to furnish an affidavit in this regard. To that extent, he has filed an affidavit Annexure P-4 on 11.9.2008. In the meanwhile, petitioner was reinstated on 1.1.2008. In this background, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for the purpose of execution of the award dated 20.8.2007. This Court was pleased to dispose of the petitioner's writ petition as dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to resort to the execution procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, petitioner has filed an application before the Labour Court. Labour Court passed an order on 2.9.2016 that petitioner is not entitled for back wages as he had given up the back wages by filing an affidavit Annexure P-4. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 20.8.2007, award of the Labour Court was in his favour to the extent of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Respondents did not implement the award immediately. However, they insisted that if petitioner gives up back wages in that event he would be reinstated. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to file an affidavit to the extent that he has given up the back wages. Petitioner is an illiterate person and he was appointed as a sweeper. For his livelihood, his intention was to take back the employment. Therefore, he was compelled to furnish an affidavit to the extent that he will give up the back wages. Therefore, respondents as well as Labour Court relying on affidavit denied the benefit of award dated 20.8.2007. The same is highly arbitrary and illegal. Thus, order passed by the Labour Court dated 2.9.2016 is liable to be set aside.