C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 Date of Decision:15.10.2008 Pritam Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate with Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Pritam Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing award dated 24.11.2004 Annexure P.10. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner- workman was appointed as Fertilizer Clerk from 12.6.1978. His services were regularised as such on 24.1.1979. The same were terminated by the respondent- Management. He raised a dispute in the Labour Court at Patiala. He was taken back into service vide order dated 24.11.1980. His services were again terminated vide order dated 24.2.1983. The retrenchment compensation was paid to him on 22.4.1983. Again he raised an industrial dispute and filed a demand notice before the Management on 24.6.1983. His demands were not met. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Finally, the Labour Court gave C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 -2- the award Annexure P.10. The reference of the dispute has been declined only on Issue No.3. The other issues have not been touched at all. It is totally a non-speaking order and shows non-application of mind. The evidence on record has totally been brushed aside. This award is liable to be set aside on the grounds embodied in this petition. In the written statement, the respondent- Management has inter- alia pleaded that the learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a positive finding of fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') and in view of reduction of Staff Strength. The principle of `last come and first go' was also followed. That after termination of services of the petitioner during the probation period, he was offered fresh appointment, which he had accepted. He joined the service as a fresh appointee on 24.11.1980. He continued in service till the date of his termination. The retrenchment compensation was sent along with the order of termination. He evaded to receive the same and, therefore, he cannot take any benefit of the receipt of draft on a later date. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides, perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, with due care and circumspection. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court:- (i) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present application? OPM (ii) Whether the Marketing of Fertilizer activity of C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 -3- respondent is not industrial establishment? OPM (iii) Whether there is non-compliance of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent? OPW (iv) Whether previous service of Pritam Singh is not to be counted towards seniority? OPM (v) Whether the Corporation is not an industrial Establishment within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act? OPM (vi) Whether the termination order was not against the provisions contained in chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPM A glance through the impugned award would reveal that Issues No.2 to 6 were taken up simultaneously for discussion. Paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the award reads as under:- “17. After hearing the rival contention of learned representative for the workman and learned representative for the management, I am of the view that the contention of learned representative for the workman has no force. 18. The order – vide Ex.M.5 clearly shows that in view of the closure of Fertilizer Sale Centres the workman being one of the juniormost Fertilizer Clerks, the corporation does not require the services of the workman and an amount of Rs.1921.58 was remitted to him by bank draft dated 25th February, 1983. Then there is acknowledgement given by the workman that he has C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 -4- received the bank draft – vide Ex.M6. So, the services of the workman were not illegally terminated. There is compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. His services were legally terminated. Hence issue No.3 is decided against the workman and in favour of the respondent/ management. The appointment of Pritam Singh was fresh after settlement. So other issues are also decided against the workman and in favour of the respondent/ management.” Obviously, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court without holding discussion on Issue No.2, 4 to 6 held that “so other issues are also decided against the workman and in favour of the respondent/ Management”. A glance through Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 would reveal that host of contentions were raised by the representatives of both the parties. Without touching the same and without returning findings thereon decided rest of the issues against the workman. In the absence of findings on rest of the material issues, it is very difficult to decide the matter effectively, completely and finally. Thus, there is no other alternate except to remit this case to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Sequelly, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for deciding it afresh after hearing both the counsel for the parties and by assigning reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the contentions to be raised by the respective counsels. The matter will be decided within a period of two months from today. The parties through their respective counsels are directed to put in their appearance before the C.W.P. No.10785 of 2005 -5- aforesaid Labour Court on 10.11.2008. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh well before the said date. A copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties on payment of requisite fee. October 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE