- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court by which it was held that the retrenchment of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE workman was appointed as Sales As-sistant-curn-Store Keeper on December 26, 1984. He had actually joined on January 4, 1985. He was retrenched on July 11, 1986. At the time of termination of service, the workman was paid a sum of Rs. 1, 137. 1 Ops. being one month's pay in lieu of the notice and Rs. 567. 35 ps. towards 15 days pay as retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner-management, the workman served a notice of demand. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court. It appears that the reference was received in the Registry of the Labour Court on March 29, 1988. On April 28, 1988, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte order declining the relief to the workman on the ground that he had failed to file a statement of claim. The workman moved an application on May 23, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 5 with the writ petition, for setting aside of the ex parte award. Vide order dated June 16, 1988, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P. 16, the learned Labour Court set aside the ex parte award. Finally on November 16, 1988, the Labour Court gave the impugned award in favour of the workman. This award has been challenged on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order and that even the application for the setting aside of the ex parte award has been wrongly entertained. It has been further stated that the award of the back wages by the Labour Court was wholly unjustified.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Arun Walia contends that the Labour Court having declined the relief to the respondent-workman by its award dated April 28, 1988, it had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to either set aside this award Of to examine the matter de novo. He submits that the Act does not confer any power of review on the Labour Court and that the impugned award is wholly without jurisdiction. It has also been urged that the application filed by the workman for setting aside of the ex parte award has not even been properly verified and as such it could not have been entertained. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent.;