MANAGING DIRECTOR, UHBVNL, PANCHKULA AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR.COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of nine writ petitions i.e. CWP-7402- 2016, CWP-7403-2016, CWP-7404-2016, CWP-7405-2016, CWP-7406- 2016, CWP-7407-2016, CWP-7408-2016, CWP-7409-2016 & CWP7477-2016 as common question of law involves therein. For the decision of the these petitions, facts are taken from CWP-7402-2016.

(2.) Present writ petition i.e. CWP-7402-2016 is challenge to the impugned award dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure P1), whereby respondent No.2-workman (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service along with 50% back wages from the date of filing of claim statement.

(3.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present case, the workman worked continuously with the petitioners-management (hereinafter referred to as "the management") as A.L.M. from 15.10.2009 till 30.09.2011. On 01.10.2011, the management terminated his services without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The persons, junior to him, are still continuing with the management; the procedure of "last come-first go" has not been followed and the provisions of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Act have been violated. The management contested the case on the ground that the workman was appointed on the basis of service agreement on D.C. rates. The service agreement was for a fixed period and automatically ceased on expiry of the terms i.e. before six months or when regular selected candidates were appointed. The workman had not completed 240 days of continuous working within one year. There was no necessity of any notice or compensation to the workman and prayed that the reference be decided against the workman.