- (1.) The petitioner-workman has approached this Court by filing the instant petition impugning the award dated 20.4.2012, Annexure P4, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby while answering the reference in his favour, relief of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- has been granted, but he has been denied reinstatement in service.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the workman had been appointed as a Driver in the office of Director, Secondary School Education, Haryana since redesignated as Director, School Education, Haryana, on consolidated salary, on 1.6.2005 and had worked till 31.3.2006. It is contended that finding having been returned by the Labour Court as regards non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') on account of termination of the services of the workman without any notice nor retrenchment compensation, the relief of re-instatement should have been granted. It has further been argued that the Labour Court had noticed the factual position as regards two persons, namely, Satish Kumar and Mandeep having been appointed as Drivers on the same vehicles which was earlier being driven by the present petitioner and as such, since the petitioner had not been given an opportunity in the capacity of a retrenched employee to be reengaged as Driver, there had been a clear-cut violation of Section 25-H of the Act. Learned counsel would argue that a finding with regard to violation of Section 25-H of the Act has not been returned by the Labour Court and as such, a grave error had been committed. In the alternative, submission has also been raised as regards the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to be on the lower side. Towards such submission, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Bharat Sanchar Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Man Singh, 2012 1 SCT 641 wherein the kman who was on daily wages had been awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs on account of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and wherein the workman had rendered service for a period little more than 240 days.
(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would support the award by submitting that the same is well-reasoned and passed upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and would submit that the workman having been engaged under contractual basis and on a consolidated salary would not be entitled to the relief of reinstatement as his tenure of engagement was very short.;