- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.409/2005 (The Chairman, Makkasar Gramseva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Srigangangar & anr.) DATE OF ORDER : 11/4/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Ashwini Swami,for the petitioner. Mr.Girish Sankhala, for the respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner employer is challenging the validity of the award dated 25/5/2004 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Srigangangar in labour dispute case no.22/2004, whereby, the learned Labour Judge set aside the termination order of the respondent workman dated 9/2/2001 and passed an order for reinstatement. According to the facts of the case, respondent workman Jag Ram son of Nand Ram Nayak was appointed on 10/11/1990 and worked upto 9/2/2001 and during this period his work was found to be satisfactory but his services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, respondent workman raised industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for reference. Vide notification dated 3/1/2004 the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to - 2 - the Labour Court, Sriganganagar, where the respondent workman filed his claim and, thereafter rely was filed by the petitioner employer. In reply filed by the petitioner employer,it was specifically mentioned that the workman has committed misconduct, therefore, his services were terminated. But, as per the workman he was not charge sheeted nor any inquiry was conducted against him,so also no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent workman. Upon perusal of the finding of the award, it is also observed in the finding by the learned Judge, Labour Court that no charge sheet has been filed before the Court, so also no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, therefore, as per the finding of Judge, Labour Court the petitioner employer has failed to prove any misconduct against the respondent workman, so also a clear finding has been given by the Judge, Labour Court that workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, therefore, at the time of termination, employer was under obligation to follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Labour Court because admittedly, the petitioner employer has failed to prove the misconduct before the Labour - 3 - Court. In these circumstances, award passed by the labour Court, Sriganganagar does not require interference with regard to finding of illegal termination of respondent workman. However, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and admittedly w.e.f. 9/2/2001 to 25/5/2004 the respondent workman had not worked, therefore, on the principle of `no work no pay' the award passed by the Labour Court with regard to 50% back wages may be set aside. In my opinion, there is force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to modify the award to the extent that the order with regard to payment of 50% back wages from the date of termination which is 9/2/2001 till 25/5/2004, the date on which award was passed is hereby set aside. However, other part of the award is upheld. With the above modification in the award, the writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja