- (1.) THE main aim of the statute of Industrial Disputes Act as is evident from its preamble and various provisions contained therein is to regulate and harmonise relationship between employers and employees for maintaining industrial peace and social harmony. The provisions of the Act deserve interpretation keeping in view interests of both the employer, who has put his capital and expertise into the industry and the workers who by their labour equally contribute to the growth of the industry. The Act under consideration has a historical background of industrial revolution inspired by the philosophy of Karl Marx. It is a piece of social legislation. The Act aims at promoting social justice, interests both of employers, employees and in a democratic society, most importantly the interest of society i.e. people at large, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the industrial activities, have to be kept in view.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in I.D. No. 101 of 1998 which was published on 2.12.2006 and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2006, whereby the workman (respondent no. 2) has been reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefit together with seniority, the present writ petition has been filed. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was engaged on daily wages @ Rs. 20/- to carry water on 4.1.1991 till 15.3.1991. Again he was engaged at the rate of Rs. 13 per day for 149 days during the period 18.3.1991 to 1.10.1991 and was finally disengaged on 1.10.1991.
(3.) APPLICATIONS were invited through employment exchange for filling of five posts of Class IV employees in the Company and in this respect name of the petitioner was also sponsored. After the selection process, interview was conducted and he was engaged as peon for 80 days only. He worked as temporary peon w.e.f. 1.2.1992 till 31.1.1993. It is stated that the workman worked only for 234 days and did not have 240 days continuous service during this period. After lapse of three years he raised dispute which was referred to the labour court for adjudication. The said order was passed on 29.6.1998. The reference is as under:- "Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company in terminating the services of Shri Indresh Kumar, w.e.f. 1.2.1993 is justified or not and whether he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits? If not, what relief he is entitled for?" ;