SANJAY KUMAR Vs. LABOUR COURT AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sunil Samdaria, the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the appeal, are that the appellant, who claimed to have been appointed as a daily wager with the respondent-University in January, 1998, was terminated from its service on 19.06.2004. He raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was terminated in total non-compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was eventually referred to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and upon full adjudication, it, by its award dated 09.09.2009, interfered with the termination of the service of the applicant/appellant, but as a consequential relief, granted him only compensation. Direction for his reinstatement in service was not made. Being aggrieved, the appellant instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15956/2009 seeking this Court's intervention. By judgment and order dated 19.03.2012, impugned in the appeal, the challenge was answered in the negative.

(3.) Mr. Samdaria has argued that as the learned Industrial Court had interfered with the termination of the service of the appellant on the ground that it was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, it ought not to have denied him the benefit of reinstatement in service. To buttress this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow And Another, 2001 2 SCC 423.