G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) THE present judgment shall dispose of five writ petitions namely CWP Nos. 13594, 13659, 13660, 13667 and 13668 of 2010, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 13594 of 2010, Harbans Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and others. The petitioner -workman is aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P -1) whereby, the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/ - as lumpsum compensation for illegal termination, failing which, he shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization.
(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the Directorate, Local Bodies, Punjab, vide letter dated 03.09.2001, appointed 41 persons on daily wage basis as Registering Clerks for the purpose of preparing recommendations regarding delimitation of awards of Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils of the State by collecting data by visiting door to door. The workman had earlier also served w.e.f. 10.03.1995 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 10.04.1997. The services of the persons at Sr. Nos. 4 and 6 were regularized and it was recommended that the workmen be adjusted in other departments. This Court had passed order dated 01.04.1997, which had allegedly been violated and an order dated 23.10.2001 had been issued where, a workman and other co -workers were asked to submit a representation for adjustment in other departments, which was to be considered in view of the order passed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2001. A representation had been made on 07.12.2001 but no reply was sent. The work was perennial in nature and the termination on 13.11.2002 was illegal and not justified since the workman had worked for more than 240 days. It was submitted that unfair labour practice had been adopted since initially appointment had been made from 1995 to 1997 and secondly, the appointment was made from 2001 to 2002. This Court had been approached by filing CWP No. 18359 of 2002 and liberty had been granted to avail the alternative remedy. Accordingly, claim statement was filed. In the defence taken by the respondent -State, it was pleaded that the workman was appointed as a Registering Clerk on temporary basis for collecting the data of population and the Government could terminate his services at any point of time without any notice. CWP No. 5746 of 1997 initially was filed for regularization, which was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on 20.02.2001 with the liberty that the workman could compete against available vacancies and Government of Punjab would consider relaxing the age. On the completion of the said work, the services were dispensed with on 13.11.2002. Another writ petition bearing CWP No. 18359 of 2002 was also filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The Labour Court examined the Assistant Director, Inderjit Singh Randhawa whereas the workman examined himself as AW1. The appointment order dated 03.09.2001 was exhibited as Ex.W -1 whereas the termination order dated 12.11.2002 was exhibited as Ex.W -2.
(3.) AFTER examining the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of appointment dated 03.09.2001 was independent of the judgment passed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2001 whereby, the benefit of relaxation of age had to be given. In view of the fact that the workman completed 240 days preceding the date of termination, it was held that he was entitled for protection and there was violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (8) SCC 402 and compensation was granted to the tune of Rs.50,000/ -.;