- (1.)We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 4th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
(2.)It is not in dispute that the respondent was employed as a driver by the appellant in the month of January, 1991. His services were terminated in the year 2001. Before termination, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by filing an application for regularization of his services. The said application was disposed of with a direction that his services shall not be dispensed with either by engaging a driver through a contractor or by engaging a daily wager or by making such type of arrangements and directed to continue in service till a regular incumbent is appointed or till such time the work of driver is available.
(3.)It is the case of the appellant that in the year 2001, a regular driver was appointed and his services were terminated. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, before whom the matter was raised as an industrial dispute, has held that the respondent should be reinstated with 50% back wages. The Award was challenged before the High Court by way of a writ petition. The Division Bench, vide the impugned order, had dismissed the writ petition.