IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8151 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 31, 2009. Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Bhiwani. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Shri Jaibir Singh and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the workman only on the ground that the workman has completed 240 days in one calendar year that too in the year 1992, whereas the termination of the workman is on 16.09.1997. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the period to be taken into consideration for computing 240 days is the 12 preceding months from the date of termination. She contends that the Labour Court has totally overlooked the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and has proceeded to decide the case on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. Versus Ramanuj Yadav and others, 2004 (1) R.S.J. 277, wherein the U.P. C.W.P. No. 8151 of 2008. State Industrial Disputes Act were in question which do provide for completion of 240 days in any calendar year and it did not refer to or strict to condition of 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of termination. She contends that in this view of the matter, the award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman No. 1 contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are based on the evidence produced by the management itself and therefore, cannot be faulted with. He contends that the award passed by the Labour Court, therefore, deserves to be sustained. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The Industrial Disputes Act as applicable to the State of Haryana is where Section 25-B as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is applicable. The said provision envisages taking into consideration the period of 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. In case, the workman has completed more than 240 days in those 12 preceding months from the date of termination, he is entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court having totally overlooked these provisions of law, the award dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. The judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (supra), being not applicable in the present case, has been wrongly relied upon by the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned award dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside. -2- C.W.P. No. 8151 of 2008. Counsel for the respondent contends that not only the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with was pleaded but apart from that it was contended by the workman and evidence has been led as also pleadings have been made that persons junior to the workman have been retained in service and fresh appointments thereafter have been made leading to the violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that no findings whatsoever nor any evidence has been discussed by the Labour Court on this question and therefore, the case deserves to be remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh decision on this question. Counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the submission made by counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the award shows that this aspect has been pleaded on stand referred to by the Labour Court in its impugned award but no findings on the question with regard to violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been given by the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh decision on the question of violation of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20.04.2009. The Labour Court is directed to proceed and decide the case at the earliest. The present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above observations. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 31, 2009. sjks. -3-