ARPANA RESEARCH AND CHARITIES TRUST (REGD ) MADHUBAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to decide three writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 9909 of 1997 titled as Arpana Research and Charities Trust (Regd.) Madhuban, vs. The presiding officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another, CWP No. 9310 1997 titled as Arpana Research and Charities Trust (Regd.) Madhuban vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another and CWP No. 9911 of 1997 titled as Arpana Research and Charities Trust (Read.) Madhuban v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another, as common question of law and similar facts are involved these cases. For convenience. facts are taken from CWP No. 9909 of 1997.

(2.) The workman was appointed as Ward Boy on 01.02.1989. He continued as such, when his services were terminated on 04.10.1994 by granting him retrenchment compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A dispute was raised by the workman and on a reference made by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence led by the respective parties, came to a conclusion vide its award dated 27.12.1996 which was notified on 10.04.1997 (Annexure P-4) that although the provisions, as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, for compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have been made but since provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages as the Court held that the workman was gainfully employed after the termination of his services.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has, in its impugned award, given a categoric finding that the provisions, as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, were duly complied with while terminating the services of the workman. It has been held that it has been proved by the Management that retrenchment compensation along with notice, as required, under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was sent to the workman but he refused to accept the same. He even refused to accept the registered letter containing the notice and the bank draft of the amount of retrenchment compensation, therefore, the termination of the services of the workman was not illegal and unjust on account of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that the Labour Court has totally overlooked the provisions, as contained in Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court has failed to appreciate that this Section talks about the category to which the workman belongs and the principle of 'Last come first go' is to be, therefore, applied to that category only to which the workman belongs. He contends that the Labour Court has clubbed up together the employees belonging to separate categories and have taken them as one category to hold that persons junior to the workman have been retained in service while terminating the services of respondent No. 2-workman. He submits that all unskilled employees have been termed and taken as one category irrespective of the cadre they belong while giving effect to the principle of 'Last come first go'. He contends that the workman was appointed as a Ward Boy and he continued in service as such. He could, therefore, be compared with the other Ward Boys working in the establishment. He could not be compared with the other categories such as Nurse Trainees, Sweepers, OPD Attendents, Ward Ayahas, Chowkidars, Peons etc., who also belong to the unskilled category but are forming different cadres in the establishment. He contends that the Labour Court has simply relied upon the statement of Sh. R.K. Joon, MW-2, a Management witness, who has stated that all unskilled persons are appointed as Ward Boy and no specific duty is assigned to them. They are put on all types of unskilled duties. He has also stated that Nurse Trainees are also unskilled workers and that the Hospital is not authorized to impart training to Nursing Staff. On this basis, the Labour Court has proceeded to put all unskilled workers in one category and has, thereafter, prepared a common seniority. The Labour Court, on this basis, has held that three Nurse Trainees Saroj, Laxmi and Jitender Kaur are junior to the workman and they having been retained in service, provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. This conclusion drawn by the Labour Court, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cross-examination of the workman, where he had categorically admitted that in the maternity ward and the female ward, the Ward Boys are not allowed nor are they deputed therein. He further relies upon the cross-examination, where it has been stated that there are separate male wards and female wards. In delivery cases and in operation theaters, Ward Boys have no work to do. On this basis, he submits that Nurse Trainees, who are to perform duties in the female wards, operation theaters and to assist in the deliveries, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to belong to the category of Workman i.e. Ward Boy. As their work assignment, place of work, nature of work, cadre is totally different. He, therefore, contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.