- (1.) The present petition has been filed at the instance of the workman challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar dated 03.10.2011. The employer is a Primary Cooperative Society.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged as a Salesmancum-Clerk on 01.12.2005 by the Maujgarh Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Sirsa. The Maujgarh Society is said to have merged with the Alika Primary Agro Cooperative Society Ltd. which is now the respondent in this petition. The services of the petitioner were put to an end on 28.02.2007. This termination, the petitioner pleads was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The relationship of employment was admitted. It was said that the employment was contractual due to exigency of work and that the worker had not put 240 days in service in the preceding year from the date of termination. The Labour Court framed issues, admitted evidence on its record and on examination of the same reached the conclusion that there had been violation of Section 25F of the Act that the workman had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination of service. Claim under 25G and 25H was negatived in absence of any evidence of name of any person junior allegedly retained in service. It was found as a matter of fact that the original society that appointed him to the post which now stands merged in the respondent-Society have written a letter dated 01.05.2005 to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Hisar to accord sanction to appoint a salesman. The permission was declined by the said authority vide letter dated 02.09.2005 (Ex. M-2). Despite this order, the petitioner's services were continued till termination. This is an apparent case where the appointment itself suffered from illegality. The finding of the Labour Court that the recruitment and appointment of the petitioner can be called a back door entry cannot be said to be perverse.
(3.) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has declined reinstatement but has moulded the relief to one of compensation of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court has also factored in the length of service into his decision making process.;