AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J
Present bunch of ten writ petitions involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are drawn from CWP No.37 of 2020.
In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court wherein, after recording the finding that the services of the respondent(s)-Workmen were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, benefit of reinstatement in service has been given along with 25% of the backwages from the date of termination till the reinstatement.
The plea raised before this Court as noticed in the order issuing notice of motion is that the benefit of backwages should not have been granted to the respondent(s)-Workmen.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s)-Workmen submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court wherein the petitioner-Company had submitted that they are agreeable to give compensation to the employees as full and final settlement and keeping in view the said stand of the petitioner-Company, while passing the order in CWP No. 33500 of 2024 titled “G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurugram and anr., decided on 03.04.2025, the employees whose services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have been granted the benefit of compensation, which judgment should also be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as well and the present petition be also disposed of in terms of the stand taken by the petitioner-Company in the said writ petition.
A bare perusal of the order in CWP No. 33500 of 2024 titled
“G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-I, Gurugram and anr., decided on 03.04.2025 would show that the same company qua the similarly situated employees had agreed to pay benefit of compensation instead of benefit of reinstatement in service and the said assertion of the petitioner-Company had been accepted and the writ petitions had been disposed of with the direction that the respondent(s)-Workmen will be given compensation @ Rs.50,000/- for each year for which he/she performed the duties with the petitioner-Company keeping in view the reliance placed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1203 of 2021 titled “Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and anr., decided on 01.03.2023.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner for the last hearings and on the last date of hearing also, the case was got adjourned by pleading that the arguing counsel is not well and he is admitted in hospital.
Today, again no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, which clearly shows that the petitioner is not interested in pursuring the present bunch of petitions.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.