Krishan Singh vs Exec.Engineer, Har.State Agr.Mktg ...

2. The appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent from 01.06.1988. His services were dispensed with in December, 1993. He served a notice of demand dated 30.12.1997 on the respondent contending that his services 2 were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and that he may be re-instated in service with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and he may be regularized according to Government policy. The respondent did not respond to the demand made by the appellant and by order dated 23.07.1999, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court. The appellant and the respondent filed their claim-statement and the objection respectively before the Labour Court, Rohtak, and led evidence in support of their respective cases. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed the Award dated 18.07.2006 holding that the appellant had admittedly completed 267 days from 01.06.1988 to 30.04.1989 and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and 3 50% back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e. 30.12.1997.

6. The only question that we have to decide in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Award dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and directing instead payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. We find that the dispute that was referred to by the State Government under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court was: "whether the termination of the services of the appellant was justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled to?" As per the claim-statement filed by the appellant before the Labour Court, he was appointed by the respondent as a daily wager against a regular post on 01.06.1988 under the Junior Engineer at Meham and the appellant worked there for different periods until the respondent 6 terminated his services in December, 1993 without any notice and without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The respondent in its objections did not take a plea that the engagement of the appellant was either against a post which was not sanctioned or contrary to the statutory rules and admitted in the objections that the services of the appellant were engaged for different periods during 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1992-1993. The respondent also furnished a statement of the works in which the appellant was engaged during the years 1988-1989 and 1989-1990, which was marked as Exb. MW-1. Taking into consideration Exb. MW-1, the Labour Court held that the appellant has completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30.4.1989 and without any notice or notice pay and without retrenchment compensation. In the relief portion of the Award, the Labour Court held that as the services of the appellant had been terminated illegally, he was entitled to be re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date 7 of demand notice, i.e. 31.12.1997.

13. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No.5257 of 2007 and direct that the appellant will be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% back wages forthwith. No costs.