IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19275 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 18.05.2009 Rajbir son of Sh.Jai Karan ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Jajanwala Coop. Credit & Service Society, Tehsil Narwana District Jind and anr. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Surinder Singh Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on record receipt of Rs.1000/- paid as costs but he states that the same has been erroneously deposited with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund instead of Legal Services Authority, Haryana. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman on the ground that since the workman was a part time employee, therefore, he was not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, C.W.P.No.19275 of 2008 -2- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Sankaralingam, JT 2008 (11) SC 128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that part time workman would be covered within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act and, therefore, would be entitled to the benefit of continuous service under Section 25-B as well as Section 25-F of the Act. He further contends that there is a categoric finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has indeed completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination from service. In the light of the above judgment, counsel for the petitioner contends that the award impugned in the present writ petition cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Counsel for the respondent is unable to rebut the contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner on facts as well as on law. He, however, submits that due to amalgamation of the respondent-Society with other society, large number of its employees have been rendered surplus. He, on this basis, contends that the workman cannot be taken back in service. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Sankaralingam's case (supra), the findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to non-entitlement of the benefit of continuous service under Section 25-B and also non-entitlement of the claim of protection under Section 25-F of the Act, cannot be sustained. Having held that the workman has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, and the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Act, admittedly having not been complied with, C.W.P.No.19275 of 2008 -3- he (workman) would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. As regards the back wages, the workman has stated that he had remained unemployed from the date of his termination, which contention has not been rebutted by the respondent-Society. Keeping in view the fact that the workman is a able bodied person and was working as a Chowkidar- cum-Peon and also that even if he had worked as a daily wager, he would have earned something, he is held entitled to 50% back wages from the date of the demand notice i.e. 12.5.2003. The contention of the counsel for the respondent that the amalgamation of the respondent-Society in the other Society has rendered many employees as surplus does not find mention in the written statement as filed by the respondent-Society on 18.3.2009. Even if that being so, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement and further even if he is found surplus, then also the provisions as contained under the Act can always be followed by the Society to take appropriate steps in that regard. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar is hereby set aside and the workman is held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. May 18, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No