Sandeep Sharma, J - (1.) Instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against Award dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (HP) in Ref. No. 92/2016, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing reference made by appropriate Government in favour of the respondent-workman (here in after, 'workman') held termination of the workman bad and accordingly, ordered his re-engagement with full back wages, continuity in service and seniority from the date of his termination. Present petitioner-employer (herein after, 'employer') being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award has filed instant petition praying therein for quashing and setting aside the award dated 3.6.2010.
(2.) "Key facts " as emerge from the record are that appropriate Government made following terms of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication: "Whether the termination of services of Sh. Gurdas Ram S/o Sh. Lakhu Ram workman by the Management of M/s. Punjab Laminates (Pvt.) Ltd., 9-10, Industrial Area, Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. w.e.f. 4.6.97 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to? "
(3.) Workman, by way of statement of claim, filed before learned Tribunal below claimed that he was working as Unskilled Mazdoor with the employer since 27.7.1997, uninterruptedly. He further stated that on 16.6.1996, while discharging his duties, he met with an accident, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries on his legs as well as head and as such remained under treatment in ESI Dispensary, Government Hospital, Bharatgarh, Una and also at PGI. As per workman, after the accident, he worked for two months but again due to pain and disability remained under treatment. However, the fact remains that the employer treated him to have abandoned the job and terminated his service vide order dated 29.9.1997 with effect from 4.6.1997, without resorting to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Workman further claimed that since his termination was in violation of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, as well as principles of natural justice, he may be ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits.;