IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20529 of 2002 Date of Decision:- 12.01.2010 Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Gurdaspur ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur & anr. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rohit Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.L.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, Presiding Officer-cum-Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.2 and he has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages and all other allied benefits from the date of termination i.e. 3.11.1997 till his actual reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, with regard to the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) cannot be sustained. He further contends that it has come on record and which is not in dispute that the order of termination of the services of the workman was passed by the C.W.P.No.20529 of 2002 -2- Administrative Officer of the Municipal Committee as the Municipal Committee was not functioning at that time. He, thus, contends that the termination of the services of the workman was fully justified as one month's salary was duly submitted to the workman along with the order of termination as per the provisions of the Section 25-F of the ID Act. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present writ petition is a part of bunch of writ petitions preferred by the Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, wherein many other similarly situated workmen were reinstated by various awards passed by the Labour Court and those writ petitions being C.W.P.Nos.9141 of 2001, 9145 of 2001, 9146 of 2001, 9162 of 2001, 9181 of 2001, 9182 of 2001 and 9385 of 2001 (all titled as Municipal Council, Dina Nagar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another). All these writ petitions along with two other writ petitions preferred by the workmen i.e. C.W.P.Nos.10263 of 2003 (titled as Deepak Kumar and others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others) and 10502 of 2003 (titled as Hardeep Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others) came up for hearing before this Court on 19.11.2009, when all the petitions preferred by the Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, were dismissed and those preferred by the workmen were allowed. He, on this basis, contends that the decision in the said cases fully covers the present case as well and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In any case, he submits that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that although the termination order may be said to have been C.W.P.No.20529 of 2002 -3- passed by a Competent Authority (but not accepted) since there was non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as mandated under the ID Act, the order of termination is bad in the eyes of law. He submits that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and in accordance with law and the evidence led by the parties and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Even if for arguments' sake it is accepted that the order of termination of the workman was made by the competent Authority, although it is not held so, still then due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act which not only mandates one month's notice and in the absence thereof, one month's salary but also mandates the payment of compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or in a part thereof or in excess thereof as per clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. The admitted position is that the workman was appointed on 1.12.1994 and continued as such till 3.11.1997. What had been offered to the workman vide Exhibit M- 2 was the pay for one month's salary in lieu of the notice under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act having not been complied with, retrenchment, if any, of the workman, cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In view of the categoric finding given by the Labour Court and in view of the admitted position with regard to the non-payment of amount C.W.P.No.20529 of 2002 -4- of compensation as mandated under Section 25-F of the Act as also keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in the other connected cases being C.W.P.No.9141 of 2001 and others, titled as Municipal Council Dina Nagar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another (Annexure R2/1) dated 19.11.2009, the present writ petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. January 12, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE