- (1.) Petitioner, the Municipal Committee, Rohtak is aggrieved by the award dated November 6,1991 given by the Labour Court. It has been found that the respondent-workman had joined service on March 1,1986 and that his services were terminated by the petitioner on May 1, 1987 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . As a result, the Labour Court has held the termination to be illegal The petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent-workman and pay him full wages.
(2.) Mr. J. K. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated as the respondent-workman had been appointed purely on work-charge basis and his services had been terminated on account of the completion ofthework.
(3.) This contention is wholly bereft of merit. In view of the statement made by Mr. Kashmiri Lal, an Establishment Clerk of the petitioner-committee, it has been held that the work against which the workman was appointed as still going on i.e. has not yet been completed." Nothing has been pointed out to show that this finding is either contrary to the evidence on record or is otherwise belied by any other evidence on record. Consequently, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner isrejected.;