IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. 1634 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 30.03.2009 Surjit son of Sh. Gopi Ram ….. PETITIONER VERSUS The Executive Engineer, PWD, B&R Provincial Division Fatehabad, District Fatehabad and another ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. T.C.Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record, copy whereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no finding with regard to the period of work put in by the workman has been made by the Labour Court in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination although a specific assertion and then evidence was produced before the Labour Court with regard to his having completed a period of more than 240 days, CWP NO. 1634 of 2009 -2- which requires to bring him within the ambit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act entitling him the benefit of reinstatement for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contends that even if the workman may not be entitled to reinstatement in service but in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (4) SCT 33 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788, he would be entitled to compensation. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is based upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the award shows that no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the period of work put in by the workman in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and no finding on the question with regard to violation of Section 25-F of the Act has been given by the Labour Court. Labour Court is the first Court, which exercises original jurisdiction. The pleadings and the evidence is led by the parties there, on the basis of the pleadings, issues are framed and those issues are decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties on such issues. The findings, so recorded, determine the rights of the parties. In the present case, although the workman may not be entitled to reinstatement in sevice but nevertheless in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb (supra) and CWP NO. 1634 of 2009 -3- the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the workman may be entitled to compensation in case he has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and further if a finding comes from the Labour Court that the provisions, as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have not been complied with. The essence, therefore, is giving finding on the basic issues, one of which would be the period, for which the workman has worked with the Management in the 12 preceding months, which would determine his entitlement of protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In case, he is entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, whether the mandatory provisions contained therein have been complied with before the termination of the services. This having not been decided by the Labour Court, the award passed by the Labour court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hisar, for fresh decision. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 18.04.2009. The Labour Court is directed to proceed and decide the case at the earliest. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 30, 2009 pj