IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21864 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 23, 2009. Birbal. .... Petitioner. Versus. The X.E.N. (Post Graduate Regional Centre Sirsa) Kurukshetra University, Haryana and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act and further on the ground that the reference is barred by limitation as claim petition was filed on 28.04.2003 whereas his services were terminated in the year, 2000. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the delay in submitting his claim statement, is totally against the records. The Labour Court has only seen C.W.P. No. 21864 of 2008. claim statement made before the Labour Court and has failed to take into consideration the demand notice which was made on 29.11.2000. The workman having made demand notice in the same year in which termination of service is alleged by the workman, the time taken by the Government for making the reference cannot be treated as a ground of holding the workman responsible for the delay in putting forth his claim statement. Further the reference also is of the year, 2002, the finding therefore cannot be sustained. He further contends that no finding has been recorded with regard to the period of work for which the workman had worked nor has 12 preceding months been taken into consideration which would entitle the workman for the protection of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in case the workman completes 240 days he would be entitled to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In any case violation of Section 25-H has been alleged in the demand notice and therefore, completion or non completion of 240 days also would not have any effect as far as his claim before the Labour Court is concerned. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that since the appointment of the workman would come within the definition of Section 2 (oo) clause (bb), therefore, this would not be retrenchment and therefore, the requirement of giving a finding with regard to period of work the workman has put in 12 months preceding the date of termination would not have any effect on the ultimate decision of the Labour Court. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and am in full agreement with the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. The facts are apparent which have been stated above, the finding with regard to the delay, the reference being barred by limitation is totally -2- C.W.P. No. 21864 of 2008. devoid of any merits and deserves to be set aside and therefore, is accordingly set aside. Perusal of the award would further show that no finding with regard to the issues which can be said to be based on the evidence led by the respective parties given by the Labour Court is non existent. The law cannot be put to effect without relying upon the facts and giving a finding to that effect. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, wherein the workman has been held entitled to compensation in case he is not entitled to reinstatement if the provisions as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. Therefore, it would not only be necessary but essential that the finding on facts on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties be given by the Labour Court to settle the rights of the parties in accordance with law. In view of the above, the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20.04.2009. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 23, 2009. sjks. -3-