IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2781 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 02.03.2009 Santra Devi ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has proceeded on the assumption that the workman cannot be reinstated in service and, therefore, has proceeded to answer the reference without taking into consideration that even if the workman is held not entitled to reinstatement as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court then also in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) having not been complied with, he would be entitled to compensation for the period he is assessed to have worked with the respondents. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh C.W.P.No.2781 of 2009 -2- and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33. In any case, he contends that the findings on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the respective parties, need to be recorded by the Labour Court being the Court of original jurisdiction, on which basis the rights of the parties have to be assessed and decided. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that the award is in consonance with the Division Bench judgment of this Court and, therefore, deserves to be upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The assumption of the counsel for the petitioner does carry weight. In view of the latest judgment passed by this Court in Ishwar Singh's case, (supra) and the above-cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that despite the fact that the workman cannot be reinstated in service as the appointment was de hors the Service Rules but if the termination of the services of the workman is due to non-compliance of the Act, the workman would be held entitled to compensation. Further, being the Court of original jurisdiction, as in this case, the Labour Court is the first Court where evidence is led by the parties and the pleadings are initiated. The basic requirement while determining the rights of the parties is to give appropriate findings as per the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. The orders of the Labour Court are subject to scrutiny by the Courts of higher jurisdiction. So, it is mandatory that the findings of fact should come at the first stage where the case is initiated. In the present case, the same is totally missing and thus, in view C.W.P.No.2781 of 2009 -3- of this fact, the award cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned award dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Gurgaon on 15.4.2009. March 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE