BALJINDER SINGH Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP-26870-2014, titled as 'Baljinder Singh Versus Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another' and CWP-26357-2014, titled as 'Didar Singh Versus Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another', where both the petitioners claiming themselves to be employed as Pump Operators by respondent No.2 - Municipal Council, Nabha, on 01.01.2004 and 01.02.2004, were terminated from service on 29.06.2008 and 28.06.2008 respectively.

(2.) As per the evidence on record and admission in the cross-examination by the petitioners - workmen, they were appointed on contract basis at the rate fixed by Deputy Commissioner and they were not issued any appointment letter. The termination of the services of the petitioners were found to be violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act') but have been denied reinstatement in service because of the fact that they do not fulfill the minimum requisite qualification for the post on which they are claiming reinstatement. Compensation amounting to Rs. 22,500/- has been granted to petitioner - Baljinder Singh and Rs. 21,700/- to petitioner - Didar Singh for having worked with respondent No.2 - Municipal Council, Nabha, for approximately 4 - 1/2 years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that once a categoric finding has been given by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal') that Section 25-F of the I.D. Act has been violated and the petitioners having worked for 4- 1/2 years, would be entitled to reinstatement in service irrespective of the fact whether they fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Pump Operator or not? He contends that it is the initial stage of appointment when the qualifications are required to be seen and in any case, with the passage of time with experience gained by the petitioners, they having become efficient in their work cannot be precluded from proceeding on the assumption that they possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Pump Operator. He, therefore, states that the impugned awards dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside and reinstatement in service of the petitioners be ordered. His further contention is that in any case, the compensation which has been awarded to the petitioners is meager for the period they had worked with respondent No.2 - Municipal Council, Nabha and the said amount requires to be enhanced. He, thus, prays that this Court may order reinstatement in service of the petitioners at the first instance and if not so, enhance the compensation awarded.