Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE crux of the combination of the facts and evidence, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that workman Major Singh -Respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the workman") was employed as daily wage worker by the management of Petitioner -Punjab State Electricity Board (for short "the management of PSEB").
(2.) THE workman claimed that he has put in 51/4 years of service, but his services were wrongly terminated on 25.8.1989 by the management of PSEB. In the wake of an industrial dispute raised by the workman, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court (in short "LC"), in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The case set up by the workman, in brief in so far as relevant, in his statement of claim (Annexure P2), is that he has put in 51/4 years of service, but his services were wrongly terminated on 25.8.1989, without issuing any notice, charge sheet, holding any inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 550 -60 P at the time of his disengagement by the management of PSEB. The impugned termination order was stated to be arbitrary, illegal and against the statutory provisions of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the workman challenged his termination order and claimed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages in the manner depicted hereinabove.
(3.) THE management of PSEB refuted the claim of workman and it was pleaded in its written statement that his services were duly terminated after issuing one month's notice and paying him the retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Act. It will not be out of place to mention here that the management of PSEB has denied all other allegations contained in the statement of claim (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal.;