RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that reference which stood made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court has been wrongly answered against the workman and the findings returned by learned Labour Court to the effect that the termination of the workman was not in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act are perverse. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. Sharma has submitted that after the services of the petitioner were terminated, respondents engaged one Mahesh Kumar and this act of the respondents of engaging a fresh hand i.e., Mahesh Kumar without first exhausting the provisions of 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act i.e., without first giving an opportunity to the petitioner by way of an offer as to whether he intended to rejoin his duties or not was against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.