IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3507 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 05, 2009. M/s Principal, Meenakshi Public School, Sector-10-A, Gurgaon (Haryana). .... Petitioner . Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 18.04.2006 (Anneuxre-P-3), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with 40% back wages. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the award is an ex-parte award which has been rendered against them. He contends that the matter could not be properly contested before the Labour Court because of the death of the Chairman of the management of the school who expired on 23.04.2005. They were not even aware of the award passed against the petitioner-management and therefore, unable to pursue its remedy before the C.W.P.No. 3507 of 2009. appropriate forum. He further contends that this is the reason why the award dated 18.04.2006 is being challenged now in year, 2009. He contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are accepted to be correct but still Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not speak about reinstatement in service. He contends that since Section 25-F does not talk of reinstatement, the award was not in accordance with law, and therefore, deserves to be set aside. He further relies upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 493 of 2006 titled Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another Versus Jasbir Singh and another, decided on 15.12.2008, to contend that since the workman was working with the respondents, he was on daily wage and therefore, could not be ordered to be reinstated in the light of the above judgment. A perusal of the award would show that the petitioner- management did appear before the Labour Court and filed its written statement wherein they had stated that the respondent-workman had absented himself without permission w.e.f. 29.07.1999 and thereafter a communication was sent to him to attend duties on 16.08.1999 but he did not turn up and therefore, it was a case of abandonment of his service. Counsel for the petitioner-management has asserted before this Court that due to the death of the Chairman of the management committee, the case could not be pursued. I do not find it quite justifiable as it is not the assertion that the Chairman was pursuing the matter before the Labour Court. Infact an authorised representative was engaged who had been putting appearance before the Court. Nothing has been reflected and produced on records that such a request was ever made to the Labour Court -2- C.W.P.No. 3507 of 2009. while proceedings were going on before the Labour Court, therefore, this contention of counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. The contention of counsel for the petitioner with regard to the Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act not stating that reinstatement has to be granted to the respondent-workman. His contention is on the wrong premises for the reasons that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act enjoins upon the employer to comply with certain mandatory requirements if they intend to retrench the services of the workman. It is not the case of respondent-management that the service of the respondent-workman was retrenched. Rather it is an admitted position that the provisions as mandated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have not been complied with. It would not be out of way to mention that the relief is not granted under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but the same is granted by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which gives the authority to the Labour Court to pass appropriate orders in case of discharge or dismissal of an employee not in accordance with the statutory provisions, therefore, this contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The next contention of counsel for the petitioner-mangement wherein he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 493 of 2006 titled Haryana State Marketing Agriculture Board and another Versus Jasbir Singh and another, decided on 15.12.2008,is totally misplaced as the same relates to appointment on a public post. The position in the present case is not the same as the appointment of a guard in the private school can never be termed as a public post, therefore, this judgment would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. No explanation is -3- C.W.P.No. 3507 of 2009. coming forth which would justify entertainment of this writ petition on an award dated 18.04.2006 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman after a delay of about three years. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 05, 2009. sjks. -4-