Civil Writ Petitions No.20821, 20891 and 20896 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No.20821 of 2010 Sports Authority of India ...Petitioner(s) v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr. ...Respondent(s) 2. Civil Writ Petition No.20891 of 2010 Sports Authority of India ...Petitioner(s) v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr. ...Respondent(s) 3. Civil Writ Petition No.20896 of 2010 Sports Authority of India ...Petitioner(s) v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: November 23, 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Arvind Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Vide this common order, three civil writ petitions preferred Civil Writ Petitions No.20821, 20891 and 20896 of 2010 -: 2 :- against the workmen, namely, Sunil Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Rajinder Kaur shall be decided together. It is an admitted fact that common award dated 1.1.2010 Annexure P-1 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh whereby the workmen were ordered to be reinstated into service along with back wages and consequential benefits within one months from the date of publication of the award. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has dealt with all the three References made by the Government on 22.6.2005. The reference in the case of Sunil Kumar was, whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 17.9.2002 was legal and justified. Similar reference was made qua Rajinder Kumar. However, the reference made qua Sushil Kumar was same but date was different, i.e., 10.9.2002. Rajinder Kumar had joined the services on 27.1.2000 and his services were terminated on 3.1.2001, whereas the stand of the management is that Rajinder Kumar had joined the service on 23.7.2001 and the same were terminated on 30.9.2002. Similar is the stand of the management qua Sunil Kumar. Sushil Kumar stated that he joined the services on 14.9.2001 and his services were terminated on 19.9.2002. A finding of fact has been returned by the Labour Court that all the three workmen had completed 240 days. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner-Department is an “industry”. It has come in evidence that all the three workmen were paid their salary through cheques. The Labour Court further held that since work is available with the management and management has no plan to make recruitment against Civil Writ Petitions No.20821, 20891 and 20896 of 2010 -: 3 :- the regular vacancy according to the rules of the Department, workmen can be permitted to continue to discharge their duties and dispensation of their services will amount to unlawful labour practice. While dispensing with the services of the respondent-workmen, the management had not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to assail the award on any justifiable grounds. It is stated by the Counsel that even though workmen had completed 240 days, they were not regularly appointed and, therefore, their services can be dispensed with. However, the Counsel for the petitioner has failed to dislodge the observations made by the Tribunal to the effect that the work is available and no regular appointment is sought to be made, as to why the services of the workmen are to be terminated, no reason has been disclosed. Furthermore, Counsel could not justify as to why the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with while dispensing with the services of the workmen. It has been recently held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010)3 SCC 192 and Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), (2010)5 SCC 497 that violation of Section 25-F of the Act entitles workmen to reinstatement. Hence, no interference is warranted and the award of the Labour Court is affirmed. The present writ petitions are dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 23, 2010. Judge kadyan