SARDUL SINGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB STATE COOP SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD , CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 7914 of 1987 preferred by Sardul Singh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') as well as C.W.P. No. 9414 of 1987 filed by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Markfed') under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India against the impugned award dated 27.5.1987 (Annexure P.8) whereby the workman is held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. The reason for Sardul Singh posing a challenge to this award is that he has not been awarded his full back-wages, whereas the Markfed is aggrieved with this award for allowing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service. The facts are being garnered from C.W.P. No. 9414 of 1987.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that Sardul Singh- workman was appointed as a Field Assistant by the Markfed vide letter dated 9.9.1980. As per the terms and conditions laid in his appointment letter, he was put on probation for a period of one year. He joined the service of the Markfed on 22.9.1980 at Faridkot. He served the Markfed from 22.9.1980 to 25.9.1980, whereafter he absented from duty. After repeated warnings, he joined his duties on 22.10.1980. He was again irregular in his attendance. He remained on duty upto 21.1.1981. Thereafter, he again absented from duty without any leave. He was informed by the Markfed vide letter dated 3.2.1981 to join the duty but he failed to resume the same. A telegram was also sent to him on 10.2.1981 asking him to join the duty but he did not respond. The Markfed was thus left with no alternative except to terminate his services and thus his services were terminated vide order dated 16.2.1981. He worked for only 97 days. He issued a demand notice to the Markfed after more than five months of the termination of his services. Then, he filed an application under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be called as 'the Act') before the Government which referred industrial dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda. He filed claim petition before the Labour Court in October, 1982 contending that his services have been terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation.

(3.) The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court framed the following issues :-