- (1.) The petitioner/ workman is before this court challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 29.3.2010.
(2.) Briefly the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Mali by respondent no. 1 on 1.9.1992. He worked as such with the management continuously till 17.7.2001. After he had put in about eight years of service, his services were terminated on 18.7.2001 in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), as no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Aggrieved by his termination, he filed CWP No. 2709 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 1 to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected without any reason. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8293 of 2005, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 28.9.2006 with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. He raised a demand notice on 23.10.2006. The dispute was referred to respondent no. 2 for adjudication. Respondent No.2 vide its award dated 29.3.2010 granted relief of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement in service. It is this award which is impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner claiming that he is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as Mali with effect from 1.9.1992 onwards. After he had put in about eight years of service, his services were unceremoniously terminated on 18.7.2001. He further contended that respondent No.2 vide its award dated 29.3.2010 had only granted relief of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner even though it was held that termination of his services was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Once it was proved that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service during the preceding 12 months and his termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, he should have been granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. He further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate that in the present case it was not the pleaded case of the respondent-management that the petitioner was not at all entitled to re-instatement with continuity in service and back wages because he was daily wager and was not appointed as per the service rules. No issue in this regard was framed by the Labour court.;