SUMIT KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition by the workman under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") to the extent that the petitioner has been awarded 25% of his basic pay as back wages from the date of demand notice till the date of award and deprived him of reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition; that the petitioner was appointed as Professional Sales Representative on 31.01.2002 and was confirmed on 11.11.200 Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Field Officer on 30.04.2004. However, his services were terminated on 06.01.2007 vide letter dated 05.01.2007 on account of his absence from duty. The workman raised a demand notice on 09.04.2007, on the basis of which reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made to the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') and the Tribunal pronounced the award (Annexure P/1) and the management was directed to pay the workman 25% of his basic pay as back wages from the date of demand notice till the date of award.

(3.) At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in continuous service from 2002 to 2007 and during this period, he performed his duties to the best of his ability and he was promoted in recognition of his good services. The petitioner was on medical leave from 31.12.2006 to 07.01.2007 on account of Lumbar Spine Strain (LS Strain). However, his services were terminated on 06.01.2007 vide letter dated 05.01.2007 without issuance of any charge sheet or holding regular enquiry. Although, learned Tribunal pronounced the award (Annexure P/1) holding that the management has terminated the services of the workman illegally, yet the Tribunal directed the respondentmanagement to pay the workman 25% of his basic pay as back wages from the date of demand notice till the date of award instead of ordering reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.