C.W.P. No.2550 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2550 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 19, 2011 Divisional Forest Officer, Hoshiarpur .....PETITIONER Versus Bihari Lal and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Divisional Forest Officer, Hoshiarpur has filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 10.9.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar. Vide the said award, respondent No.1-Bihari Lal (workman) was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and half of the back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. from 6.10.1989 till reinstatement. In this case, the services of the respondent-workman, who was working as Forest Guard, were earlier terminated in the year 1979. The workman challenged his termination by seeking reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 24.10.1980 ordered to reinstate the workman with continuity of service. Thereafter, again on 28.2.1981 the services of the workman were terminated on the ground that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and his services could be terminated as per the service conditions. Again, the workman challenged the said order. The Labour Court vide impugned award held that once the workman was C.W.P. No.2550 of 1994 -2- ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, his services could only have been terminated by complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it could not have been terminated merely on the ground that he was appointed on ad hoc basis. After coming to the said conclusion that before terminating the services of the respondent-workman the petitioner-management did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court held that the services of the workman were illegally terminated on flimsy ground and, thus, ordered to reinstate the workman with the aforesaid back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the aforesaid facts. She could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned award and the fact that the petitioner-management did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly held that in the instant case the services of the respondent-workman were illegally terminated by the petitioner-management and, therefore, the respondent-workman was rightly reinstated with continuity of service and half of the back wages from the date of demand notice till reinstatement. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 19, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE