DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (TERRITORIAL), FOREST DIVISION, BHIWANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-5), vide which the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, has answered the reference in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice dated 13.05.2003.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to non-production of the records, adverse inference has been drawn by the Labour Court against the Management and, therefore, he would not be in a position to controvert the findings given by the Labour Court. He further contends that even if the findings recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct but still the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. He also contends that there is nothing on record to contend nor is there a finding to the effect that the appointment of the workman was made according to the statutory Rules or on a sanctioned post, which would entitle the workman to hold that post. He, on this basis, contends that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported as Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 1 SCT 310 M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, 2007 2 SCT 738 and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCT 620 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another, 2006 4 SCT 772 to buttress his arguments.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman contends that this issue, which is being projected by the petitioner in the present writ petition, was not at all a question before the Labour Court nor was that taken into consideration and since it was not pleaded before the Labour Court, no evidence to that effect was led by the parties. He, on this basis, contends that this contention cannot be raised at this stage. He further contends that there is a finding by the Labour Court holding therein that the provisions, as contained in section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have not been complied with and, therefore, termination of the workman is not in consonance with law and entitling him to reinstatement in service, is fully justified.