DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, BHIWANI AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding her entitled to reinstatement on her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 13.11.2000.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that as has been proved on record, respondent No. 2-workman had worked with the Management from June, 1988 till December, 1999. He further submits that even if the finding returned by the Labour Court that the persons junior to respondent No. 2-workman had been retained in service and there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and, as such, the termination of the services of the workman was not in consonance with the Act, is taken to be correct then also, the respondent-workman cannot be reinstated in service as the Labour Court has directed her reinstatement on the post being held by the workman, as a daily wager, who when appointed, does not hold a post and further the appointment of the workman at the initial stage was de hors the statutory rules governing the service. He submits that there is no assertion of the respondent-workman that she was appointed on a post on regular basis. On this basis, he contends that in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that such like employees cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, 2007 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi,2007 0 SCC(L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCC 575.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Labour Court has rightly, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, proceeded to decide the reference. It is an admitted position that the services of the workman were terminated without following the provisions as contained under the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had rightly ordered her reinstatement. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned award deserves to be upheld.