- (1.) THE application has been filed stating that the workman filed no application for calling of the necessary records in the case in hand. The said application is supported by the affidavit of the Senior Executive of the petitioner -management. The said affidavit is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. CWP No. 18174 of 2013
(2.) THIS judgment shall dispose of four writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 18174, 18188, 18305 and 20368 of 2013 since the employer is common and the facts and principle of law are also common. For convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 18174 of 2013, M/s. Universal Weavers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunalcum - Labour Court -3, Faridabad and another.
(3.) THE petitioner -management is aggrieved against the award dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure P -4) whereby, the Labour Court, Faridabad answered the reference in favour of the workman and it was held that he was entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages to the tune of 50% from the date of termination of service. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman took the plea that he was appointed on 20.01.2006 on a initial salary of Rs. 2,500/ - per month and an appointment letter was issued on 01.01.2007. He was stopped from joining his duty on 18.05.2007 and the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') were violated since he completed 240 days of service in the establishment and was entitled to receive benefits with full back wages and continuity of service and his services were wrongly terminated. A demand notice had also been issued and conciliation proceedings took place where the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer found that his services had been illegally and unlawfully terminated and thereafter, the reference was made. In the defence taken by the petitioner -management, plea taken was that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He had himself abandoned his job and the management had not terminated his services as he had left for a better job and was gainfully employed and had not come to the Court with clean hands.;