MAN SINGH Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner workman is challenging the validity of the award dated 20.1.2010 passed by Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur whereby it is held by the Tribunal that the termination of the petitioner workman with effect from 29.12.2004 is in violation of Section 25 -F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but instead of granting relief of reinstatement, the Judge, Labour Court passed an award against the employer to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that on one hand a clear cut finding is given by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur that the termination of the petitioner is bad in eye of law because before termination, no notice or compensation was given as per Section 25 -F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act but on the other hand, order has been passed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - only in lieu of reinstatement, which is not justified in view of the fact that vacancy of driver is in existence on that post Narayan Lal - respondent No. 5 was re -employed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the post was in existence then there was no ground to terminate the services of the petitioner and engaging other person in his place, therefore, it is prayed that award impugned may be quashed to the extent of denial of reinstatement and the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as driver.