MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. BISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 5.9.2001 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar whereby the Judge, Labour Court, held that the termination of the respondent workman w.e.f. 4.12.1998 is in violation of Section 6 and (b) of the ID Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman did not complete 240 days but ignoring the said fact, the Judge, Labour Court gave finding that the respondent workman has completed 240 days, therefore, at the time of terminating his services, one months notice and retrenchment compensation was to be given as per Section 25 -F of the ID Act.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in the award impugned. In my opinion the Judge, Labour Court considered the material evidence as well as the documentary evidence produced on record and held that the respondent workman worked w.e.f. 1.4.1984 to 10.08.1985, therefore, he has completed more than 240 days, therefore, his termination without following Section 25 -F of the Act is bad. In the opinion of this Court, the finding of fact arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court does not require any interference. However, I am of the considered view that the order of retrenchment is not sustainable in law because as per workman himself he was appointed as daily rate basis, therefore, after 29 years, it is not proper to maintain the order of retrenchment of the respondent workman in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr., reported in : (2009) 15 SCC p. 327 in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if Labour Court came to the conclusion that retrenchment of daily rated employee is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then reinstatement with full back wages is not proper and in those cases compensation should be awarded. Para 7 and 14 of the said judgment reads as under : -