S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THE State of Haryana has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 7.9.2000 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) on 7/8.9.2000 wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the various workmen mentioned in the head note of award at serial Nos.1 to 14 and reinstated them with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 14 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) were engaged as Mali -cum -Chowkidar by the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Management) on daily wages on or after 1.5.1995. Vide order dated 25.4.1998, the services of the workmen were dispensed with. Retrenchment compensation was offered to the workmen, but they had refused to accept the same. The compensation was sent to the workmen through registered letters. Respondents No. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 accepted the demand draft of compensation, but the remaining respondents refused to accept the same. The letters were received back un -delivered. Separate demand notices were served by the workmen on the Management. Consequently, the appropriate Government made 14 references under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Labour Court. The workmen filed the statement of claims. The Management filed the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the issue as per terms of reference. The reference was in the following terms : - "Whether the termination of the services of the workmen was in accordance with law or not ? If not, then to what amount of back wages the workmen would be entitled to on reinstatement - As noticed earlier, the aforesaid reference has been decided by the Labour in favour of the workman. The Labour Court noticed the facts as emerging from reference No. 1334 of 1999. It was pleaded by the Management as preliminary objection that the workmen has been retrenched due to financial crush being experienced by the Government of Haryana. Therefore, the workmen had been retrenched by offering them compensation in accordance with Section 25 -F of the Act.
(3.) AFTER examining the entire evidence, the Labour Court has returned finding on the facts. The Labour Court has held that the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workmen in accordance with law. It has been held that the Management had failed to place any evidence before the Labour Court to the effect that the workmen had refused compensation. It was necessary for the Management to produce the person who had made the report of refusal. It was also held that mere calling in the office for receiving compensation is not compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act. After arriving at this conclusion, the Labour Court has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in case Roop Narain Shukla v. Presiding Officer, 1997(3) SCT 535, and also a decision of this Court rendered in case Raghubir Singh etc. v. Beas Construction Board etc., 1979 CLR 113. Mrs. Rathore has relied on another judgment of this Court rendered in case Pepsu Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others . In this judgment, it is clearly held as follows : - "Mere sending notices calling upon the workmen to receive payment before the due date and then equating such an offer to actual payment, might lead to harsh results, because if the employee could not come on the day fixed to receive the payment for some good reason, an obstinate employer may refuse to make the payment on the next day on the plea that the notice itself was equivalent to payment and his obligation to make the payment had ceased on the previous day." In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the award given by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed.;