- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 07.08.2009 (Annexure P -1) whereby the workman has been granted a sum of Rs. 12000/ - as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
(2.) THE claim of the workman was that he worked from 01.12.1994 to 30.09.1997 and his services were terminated illegally on 01.10.1997, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') and that he was drawing a sum of Rs. 3020/ - per month at the time of termination of his service. His juniors were retained while he was terminated from service and therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated.
(3.) THE respondent -Department opposed the said claim petition and pleaded that he has not completed 240 days continuous service during the last calendar year and his services were dispensed with due to the non -availability of work. It was pleaded that he had earlier filed civil suit which was dismissed on 16.03.1999. In his cross -examination as WW1, the workman deposed regarding his services as a Tubewell Operator whereas the Department examined Amrit Pal Singh, SDE who deposed that the workman was getting Rs. 98.85 per day and documents Ex.M42/1 to Ex.M46/1 were brought on record. After examining the muster rolls, the Labour Court came to the opinion that the Management witness also admitted that the workman received salary of 241 days in the last 12 months preceding 01.10.1997 and therefore, the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act have been violated. Relevant findings read as under: "It is not disputed that Lakhbir Singh was engaged as a daily wager in the respondent department. The case of the workman is that he worked upto 30.9.1997 and that his services were terminated on 1.10.1997. Even respondents have admitted that the workman was disengaged on 1.10.1997. Thus, it is evident that workman remained working in the respondent department upto 30.9.1997. So, it is proved on the record that the services of workman were terminated on 1.10.1997. From the perusal of muster rolls Ex.M28, Ex.M32 to Ex.M38, it is evident that workman, completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year immediately before 1/10/1997. Even MW1 admitted in his testimony that workman received salary of 241 days in the last 12 months immediately preceding 1.10.1997. Thus it is proved on the record that workman completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year immediately before the date of his termination. It amounts to retrenchment even if the services of workman were discontinued due to non -availability of work in the respondent department. It is evident that neither notice pay nor retrenchment was paid to the workman by the respondents, when his services were terminated. So, it is proved on the record that the services of workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act." However, keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1, only a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - was awarded as compensation. The issue regarding the filing of the civil suit was also examined and it was held that the civil suit was not decided on merits and even otherwise, it had no jurisdiction to try the said suit. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed.;