- (1.) Through the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the challenge is to the decision dated 03.07.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-company through which the appellant-company had challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Gurgaon.
(2.) The facts in brevity leading to the filing of the present appeal by the appellant-company are that the respondent-workman was appointed by the appellant-company as a Junior Engineer w.e.f. 07.12.1995. He was confirmed as such vide confirmation letter dated 01.10.1996 and thereafter, vide letter dated 01.07.2000 was promoted as Junior Engineer Grade (J.1). However, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.10.2001, which led to raising of an industrial dispute by him which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon for adjudication. Before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, the respondent-workman complained of wrong and illegal termination. According to him, his termination was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') particularly Sections 25-F and 25-N. The respondent-workman sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
(3.) The appellant-company filed a written statement objecting to the very maintainability of the claim made by the respondent-workman. It was stated that the respondent-workman did not come under the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. It was the case of the appellant-company that the respondent-workman was a Junior Engineer and was mainly engaged in supervisory work. He, thus, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act and resultantly, the appellant-company prayed for dismissal of the claim being not maintainable. On merits, the appellant-company submitted before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, that the services of the respondentworkman were not terminated but he was simply discharged as his services were no longer required. It was further stated by the appellant-company that the company at Gurgaon had been closed and therefore, the question of reinstatement of the respondent-workman did not arise. The appellant-company further submitted that Rs. 45,000/- had been taken as a loan by the respondent-workman from Gramin Bank, Gurgaon. Payment of that loan was made by the appellantcompany to the Bank on behalf of the respondent-workman and by depositing that amount in Gramin Bank, Gurgaon, the appellant-company had made full and final payment to the respondent-workman.;