ANIL KUMAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three petitions arise out of same award and are being disposed of together by a common judgment. In C.W.P. No. 10923 of 2005, the challenge is by the workman denying to him the alleged right of reinstatement and awarding to him only a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ -. C.W.P. No. 1752 of 2007 is a writ petition by the management challenging the direction for compensation for the workman, who is the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 10923 of 2005. C.W.P. No. 7381 of 2007 is again a petition filed by the management, in so far as it directs compensation for another workman, who is not, however, before this Court challenging the denial of the relief of reinstatement.

(2.) THE admitted case is that due to financial stringency, the Public Works Department decided to terminate the services of 300 odd workmen and sent due notices on 27.08.1997 purporting to be notices of termination and informing by the same notices that compensation in lieu of one month's period of notice and for the number of years of service that the workman had put in, as required to be paid under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act was also kept ready through demand drafts and requiring the workmen to collect the same from office. Admittedly, the demand draft or the letter was not taken by the workman in C.W.P. No. 10923 of 2005 on 27.08.1997, the date when the order of termination was to take effect.

(3.) SH . Nalwa, learned Counsel appearing for the management refers to Section 25 -F that reads as follows: