Balwan vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in the light of the fact that the petitioner-workman had specifically stated before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He contends that the petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Beldar on daily wage basis on January 19, 1998 with the respondent-Management and continued to work as such till 31.12.1999 when his services were illegally terminated on 1.1.2000 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Management did not file any written statement despite grant of various opportunities in this regard by the Tribunal and, therefore, its defence was struck off. He contends that in the light of the striking off of the defence of the Management, the assertion of the petitioner remained unrebutted and, therefore, the Labour Court has wrongly proceeded not to grant any relief to the workman. Even if it is taken that the appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing the service, he would at least be entitled to compensation as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and Ors. v. Keshab Dev 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and Anr. 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, as the provisions u/s 25-F of the Act have not been complied with and thus the termination of the services of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. He, on this basis, prays that even if the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in service but certainly would be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the Management.

Counsel for the respondents is unable to rebut the contentions which have been raised by counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

In the light of the fact that the defence of the respondent- Management was struck off by the Labour Court on account of the non- filing of the written statement despite grant of various opportunities in this regard, the assertion as made by the workman before the Labour Court was required to be taken into consideration. A positive stand was taken by the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He had worked with the Management from January 19, 1998 till 31.12.1999 and, therefore, had completed 2 years with the respondent-Management. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the same cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

As the appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner would not be entitled to reinstatement in service but certainly would be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the respondents and for the illegal termination of his services. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and Ors. (supra), and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh and another (supra) would cover the claim of the petitioner as put-forth by his counsel.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the period he had worked with the respondent-Management and also in the light of the termination of his services being in violation of the provisions of the Act. The amount of compensation as assessed by this Court be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.