PANIPAT COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANIPAT Co-opera live Sugar Mills Ltd. , is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the award of the learned Labour Court by which it has been held that "the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages w. e. f. February 24, 1987 i. e. , the dale on which the demand notice was served". A tew facts may be noticed.

(2.) IT is averred that respondent No. 2 had worked on daily wages fordiffcrent durations of time with the petitioner. In the year 1982, he worked for a period of 96 days. Thereafter, in the year 1983, the respondent workman worked for 224 days. In the year 1984, he worked for 250 days, while in 1985, he worked for 107 days only. The details have been furnished in a statement appended as Annexure P,4 with the writ petition. The petitioner states that after working for 10 days in the month of November 1985, the respondent absented himself. Then he served a notice of demand dated February 24, 1987, The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat gave notice to the petitioner, when it was stated on its behalf that work on daily wages could be given to the workman. The respondent-workman refused to accept the offer. Thereafter, the appropriate authority referred the matter to the Labour Court. The respondent-workman filed a statement of claim which was controverted by the petitioner by filing a reply. After recording the evidence, the Labour Court passed the impugned award. Aggrieved by this award, the Management has come to this Court through the presentpetition. The Motion Bench admitted the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 was duly served. No written statement has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent workman. Mr. Goel contends that the award given by the learned Labour Court is wholly arbitrary and is not based on any evidence on the record of the case.