- (1.) The instant petition is directed against the award dated 8.5.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak whereby the reference has been answered in favour of workman-respondent No.1 holding the termination of his service to be illegal, and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% backwages.
(2.) Mr.Sunil Nehra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the petitioner would submit that the workman had never been engaged and rather he had fraudulently managed to get the attendance register and thereafter inserted his name in such register wherever vacant space was available. It is argued that under such circumstances, the question of compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') would not arise. In furtherance of such submission, learned counsel would contend that the Labour Court has overlooked the vital evidence in the shape of a complaint that had been made to the police authorities as regards loss of the attendance register. Mr.Nehra would also raise a submission in the alternative that even if there was a noncompliance of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman himself had claimed to have served only as a daily wager and as such, reinstatement with continuity could not have been awarded.
(3.) Per contra, Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate representing workman-respondent No.1, would contend that the Labour Court had returned a finding as regards non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and the same would not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. Learned counsel would submit that keeping in view the fact that the workman had served only as a daily wager, he would be ready and willing to give up backwages for the period in question.;