MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR Vs. KIRAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have laid challenge to the impugned award dated 30.5.2011, passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference Petition No.11 of 2008, whereby claim petition filed by the present respondent has been allowed and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity from the date of termination without back wages. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned award, have approached this Court by way of present writ petition seeking therein following reliefs:-

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the appropriate Government referred the matter in terms of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court and made following reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court for adjudication:-

(3.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') by way of claim petition stated before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (in short 'Tribunal') that he had been continuously working with the petitioners (in short 'Corporation') till his retrenchment on 9.6.2005. Workman also averred that he was appointed by the Corporation as a daily waged Sweeper in the year, 1998 and as such, he continued working till May, 2005. He further stated that he proceeded on one moth's leave with the permission of the Corporation to his native place at Gaziabad but when he was on leave, he suffered from typhoid and remained under treatment at Civil Hospital i.e. Major Asha Ram Tyagi Zila Panchayat Hospital Fatehpur, Gaziabad w.e.f. 2.6.2005 to 15.8.2005. He further stated that he duly informed the Corporation through telegram and also telephonically regarding his illness. He further stated that on 16.8.2005 when he reported for duty, he was told that his name stand struck from the roll of the Corporation pursuant to the directions of the Managing Director of the corporation. The workman further claimed that his termination was illegal, arbitrary and unjust being in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-T, 25-U and Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act').