- (1.) The Municipal Committee, Sirsa is aggrieved by the award dated August 2,1991 given by the Labour Court, Hissar. By this award, the Committee has been directed to reinstate the workman. He has also been held entitled to get back wages at the rate of 50 per cent "from the date of termination to August 1,1991 and full wages from the date of this award of today." A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) The respondent was employed as a Mali (Gardener) on April 2,1987. His services were terminated on June 21,1988. Claiming that the provisions of section 25-F had not been complied with and, therefore, the retrenchment was vitiated, the workman challenged the action of the Committee and sought a reference to the Labour Court. The reference was made on behalf of the petitioner-Committee, the plea taken was that "the applicant was employed on daily wages as work charge labour only for the period upto Completion of work and temporarily, and he was paid remuneration on daily wages. On the completion of the construction work the object of his being employed as work charge labour was accomplished." After considering the matter, the Labour Court has found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days during the twelve calender months proceeding the date of his termination. Consequently, the Committee was bound to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F. It having failed to do so, the termination of the workman's services as illegal. It has further found that he had been working as Labourer during the intervening period at the rate of Rs. 20-30 per day. After considering the matter, it held that the workman entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages upto August 1,1991 and full wages thereafter.
(3.) Mr. J. K Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that on account of a fire during the agitation against the Mandal Commission's report, the record of the petitioner-committee relating to the workman had been destroyed. As a result, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the actual record. He, however, contends that the appointment having been made only for a fixed term, the award given by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. He also submits that the workman having remained gainfully employed during the pendency of the proceedings, no ground for granting him the back wages was made out. The claim has been controverted by Mr. K. S. Keer, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.;