IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.17261 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 01.02.2010 Smt.Rama ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Narender Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Counsel for the petitioner contends that vide the impugned Award dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman merely on the ground that she is not entitled to reinstatement in service in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, 2004 (2) SC (1) apart from the other judgments referred to in the Award. He contends that without giving a finding with regard to the fact as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. Or whether the provisions of Section 25-F have been complied with or not, the Court could not have proceeded to merely reject the contention of the petitioner without giving a finding that the petitioner had either completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months prior to her termination or had completed less than the said period. In absence of such a C.W.P.No.17261 of 2009 -2- finding, the petitioner is unable to even claim compensation to which she would have been entitled to in the light of various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case the finding is returned that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. On this basis, he prays for setting aside the impugned Award dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) and for remand of the case to the Labour Court to decide and return a finding with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner had completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination or not. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, could not controvert the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the fact that no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court on the question as to whether Section 25-F of the Act has been violated or not? In view of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted. The impugned award dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon is hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the Labour court to pass a fresh award after hearing the parties and keeping in view the contentions as raised by the counsel for the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court-II, Gurgaon on 22.2.2010. Petition stands disposed of. February 01, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE