ARUN KUMAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD, DHARAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as, "workman") has laid challenge to Award dated 24.6.2017 passed by the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) (hereinafter referred to as, "Tribunal") in Ref No. 522/2016, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs50,000/- in favour of the workman in lieu of the back wages, seniority, past service benefits as well as other consequential service benefits.

(2.) Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that the Appropriate Government made following reference under Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act') to the Tribunal:

(3.) The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that he was engaged by the authorities on daily wage basis on Muster Roll in June, 2000. He continued to work till October, 2001, as such, he had completed 240 days. The workman alleged that his services were unlawfully terminated by the respondents verbally with effect from October, 2001 without issuing one month's notice and retrenchment compensation, as envisaged under Section 25F of the Act. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that since the respondents violated provisions of Section 25 of the Act, his oral termination deserves to be set aside. While placing on record factum with regard to retention of his juniors at the time of his retrenchment, workman also alleged that the principle of 'last come, first go' was also not followed by the respondents. He further claimed that after his termination, respondents engaged many persons, who subsequently worked as daily wage Beldars but at no point in time, opportunity, if any, was ever afforded to him for re-employment, as such, action of the respondents, which is in sheer violation of the provisions contained under Section 25H of the Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside.