IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19715 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 03.03.2009 Executive Engineer, National Highway, PWD (B&R), Provisional Division No.3 Branch, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak ....Petitioner(s) vs. Mukesh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to award dated 4.3.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been violated and, therefore, the services of the workman were terminated not in accordance with the Act thereby holding him entitled to reinstatement in service on his previous post with continuity thereof and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 28.12.1996. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the award of the Labour Court, which after relying upon the statement of MW-1 Sh.S.S.Hooda, SDO, National Highway, Bahadurgarh, has held that the C.W.P.No.19715 of 2008 -2- provisions of Section 25-G of the Act have been violated, goes on to show that the workman joined the service of the Management in December, 1993 and had worked upto October, 1995. The appointment of the alleged junior i.e. Sahib Singh son of Suraj Bhan, who is said to have been retained at the time of termination of the workman, was made on 8.8.1996 as Beldar and he is still working with the Management. For attracting the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. Counsel contends that on the date of termination, junior to the respondent-workman should have been retained in service. He contends that as per the evidence of the Management, the workman had worked upto October, 1995 and so, the question of violation of Section 25- G of the Act would not come if the appointment of Sahib Singh as per his assertion, was made on 8.8.1996. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the Labour Court indeed has not given a finding or accepted the statement of the Management-workman that the services of the workman were in fact terminated in October, 1995. No finding with regard to the date of termination of the workman has been given as it was asserted by the workman that he continued in service with the petitioner-Management till 13.12.1996. Counsel for the respondent-workman states that in compliance with the award passed by the Labour Court, the workman has been taken back in service. He contends that some protection be granted to him. I have gone through the records of the case and the award impugned herein. A perusal of the same does indicate that no findings with regard to the date of termination of the workman have been given by the C.W.P.No.19715 of 2008 -3- Labour Court which would be essential to determine the fact whether the provisions of Section 25-G were indeed violated by the Management. The date of termination would determine the right of the workman with regard to his claim which he has made in his demand notice. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 4.3.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision as per the observations made above. A representation be made by the workman for allowing him to continue in service during the proceedings before the Labour Court and the same would be considered by the respondents sympathetically. Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak on 30.3.2009. March 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE