SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub Divisional Officer, U.T. Electricity Department has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks quashing of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 10.3.1993. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Labour Court had held that termination of services of respondent Tara Dutt is illegal. He was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and all benefits. It was further directed that he will be entitled to back wages @ 50 per cent.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent No. 2 was appointed as T. Mate w.e.f. 4.7.86. He was later posted as Chowkidar at a monthly salary of Rs. 468/- p.m. He worked there upto 30.6.88. The services of respondent No. 2 were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.88 by an oral order. Respondent No. 2 served a demand notice contending that his services have been illegally terminated. He has not been given any adequate or reasonable opportunity to show cause against the order terminating his services nor was he given one month's notice or one month's salary. He has not even been given retrenchment compensation. Reference was made to the Labour Court. In the reply filed the petitioner contested the same. It was asserted that respondent Tara Dutt had been engaged purely on daily wages through Employment Exchange. He was engaged against deposit work i.e. building of Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17. The work was temporary in nature. Respondent No. 2 had been told that post was for duration till completion of the work. When the work was completed, he was removed.

(3.) The learned Labour Court held that petitioner failed to establish that respondent No. 2 was posted against the deposit work or that the said appointment was till the completion of said work. It was further held that the termination order was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, it was held that the order terminating the services was illegal. Keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 2 had been working on his agricultural land, the learned Labour Court awarded back wages @ 50 per cent. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.