Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the State of Punjab through Divisional Forest Officer, Pathankot praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the award (Annexure P -2) dated 14th May, 1990 delivered by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur in favour of respondent No. 1 -workman be quashed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, respondent -workman Sadhu Singh served a demand notice on 11th October, 1988 and on a reference made by the State of Punjab, as to whether termination of services of Sadhu Singh workman was justified and in order?, he submitted a statement of claim on 20th March, 1989. It was pleaded by the workman that though he was employed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pathankot in the month of January, 1977 on permanent basis against a permanent post, yet his services were terminated on 8th May, 1988 without any notice, chargesheet or payment of any retrenchment compensation. Hence, the workman stated that there had been violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). Furthermore, the workman stated that the persons junior to him in service were retained at the time of termination of his services. He prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner -State filed written statement, wherein it was stated that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis with effect from January 1977. He was not appointed against any permanent post and at the relevant time, he was working at Athwal Nursery. It was further stated that in the month of May 1988, services of the workman were terminated by the Forest Range Officer, Qadian, as there was shortage of work. Relying upon the pleadings made, following issues were framed by the Labour Court: 1. Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? 2. Relief.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , nobody appeared on behalf of the State of Punjab, and therefore, the State was proceeded against ex -parte. The workman appeared as WW -1 in his ex -parte evidence and reiterated as to what was stated in the claim petition. His evidence had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The State had adduced no evidence. The Labour Court held that it was admitted in the written statement that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis from the month of January 1977 and he continued to perform his duties till 8th May, 1988, when his services were terminated. Thus, it was held that the workman had completed more than 240 days of service in 12 calendar months and it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner -State to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act before terminating services of the workman. The workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination of his services till his reinstatement.;