SWASTIC MOTORS Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the award dated 14. 1. 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Ajmer whereby termination of services of respondent workman w. e. f. 12. 11. 2004 was declared to be in violation of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a consequence whereof, petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 25% backwages from the date of reference, i. e. 15. 6. 2006 till publication of award.

(2.) AS it appears from the impugned award, respondent workman was appointed way back on 19. 7. 1972 initially on a salary of Rs. 1220/-per month and his services, as alleged by him, were terminated by verbal order on 12. 11. 2004. The appropriate government made a reference for adjudication vide notification dated 27. 5. 2006. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material placed on record, held that the respondent workman had continuously worked w. e. f. 19. 7. 1972 and if at all his services were not required by the petitioner for one reason or the other, they were under obligation to comply with the statutory requirement of Sec. 25 (F) of the act, 1947 which, indisputedly, has not been complied with while dispensing with his services as alleged on 12. 11. 2004. It also reveals from the award that petitioner raised further objection in the written statement that respondent workman took Rs. 18,000/- from their chest and since he did not want to return the same, he remained absent from duty voluntarily. But, there was no material available on record in support thereof and this contention of the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) THIS fact remained uncontroverted which came on record of the Tribunal that respondent workman had worked w. e. f. 19. 7. 1972 and his services have been dispensed with in november, 2004. Being a workman, his services could not have been dispensed with without due compliance of statutory requirement under Sec. 25 (F) of the Act, 1947 in consequence of which, the order of verbal termination itself was illegal and the concerned workman was required to be reinstated in service.