Hawa Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad & Ors.

services. He, however, has not been able to rebut the contention, as has been raised by counsel for the Workman, with regard to C.W.P. No. 4350 of 2009 (O/M). -3- short fall in the amount of compensation at the time of termination of services of the Workman. His contention, now, is that the Work being not available and the post having been abolished and, thereafter no persons who were retrenched alongwith the Workman or others have been appointed, the Workman cannot be put back in service at Hermitage Hut, Suraj Kund, Faridabad, where he was working. He accordingly states that the Award deserves to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The admitted position is that the Workman was appointed on

01.12.1993 as a Sweeper on daily wage basis. He continued as such with the Management till 22.08.1996, when his service was terminated because of abolition of the post, which was brought about because of imposition of prohibition in the State of Haryana. The pleadings and the evidence show that after termination of services of the Workman, no other persons, who were either working with him and whose services were retrenched or any fresh appointment was made. It is an admitted position that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the Workman on 14.09.1996 and that too of 30 days wages in lieu of notice period and 30 days wages in lieu of retrenchment compensation. The Workman had worked with the Management for two years and eight months and thus was entitled to retrenchment compensation of 45 days, as mandated under Section 25-F (b) of the Act. The amount having not been paid to the Workman for 45 days period and that too at the time of retrenchment, the termination of services of the Workman cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That being so, the question now which needs to be considered and decided by this Court is whether the Workman would be entitled to C.W.P. No. 4350 of 2009 (O/M). -4- reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits or compensation in lieu of reinstatement? It is the categoric stand of the Management that the termination of services of the Workman was brought about because of abolition of the post, which was necessitated because of the imposition of prohibition in the State of Haryana. None of the workmen, who was retrenched alongwith the Workman have been taken back in service nor any fresh appointments have been made in the Hermitage Hut, Suraj Kund, Faridabad. Nothing has been brought on record, although, efforts were made on behalf of the Workman to prove that some appointments have been made after termination of his service and some juniors have been retained in service, which would suggest that the provisions as contained under the Act, i.e., Sections 25-G and H of the Act, have been violated. That being the position, the abolition of the post would be an impediment in putting back the Workman in service. However, in the light of the fact that the termination of service of the Workman was not in consonance with the provisions as contained under the Act, the Workman would be entitled to compensation in view of his illegal termination. The Workman had worked with the Management for two years and eight months and had been pursuing his claim firstly before the Labour court and then in this Court. Keeping in view the said position, the Workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside. The Workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid by the Management within of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. At this stage, counsel for the Workman submits that the reason for which the post was abolished, i.e., imposition of prohibition in the State of C.W.P. No. 4350 of 2009 (O/M). -5- Haryana is no more available and the tourism is flourishing and the work with the Management is also now available. The Workman would move a representation to the Management, who may consider the request of the Workman for appointment on daily wage basis in accordance with law. Counsel for the Management has no objection and states that if such a representation is moved by the Workman, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. March 15, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE