- (1.) THIS order will dispose of LPA Nos.187 to 194 of 2014, arising out of a common impugned order, involving similar facts and also eight Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos.24658, 24772, 24776, 24785, 24800, 24819, 24826 and 26814 of 2013. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from LPA No.l87 of 2014.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 20.11.2013, dismissing CWP No.25418 of 2013, filed by the appellants. Respondent No.1 the workman was working as a salesman at a petrol pump owned by the appellants at Hisar. He was drawing wages as per the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. He was taken in service on 1.3.2011 and worked as such without any interruption upto 1.2.2012 when his service was terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) and in his place employees were outsourced through agency. He raised an industrial dispute, by serving a notice on 9.2.2012. As such, there was no delay in seeking remedy as per law.
(3.) THE matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court at Hisar for adjudication. Both the parties were given ample opportunity to prove their case. Management failed to show that employment of the respondent -workman was covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act. It was found as a matter of fact that there was non -compliance to the Section 25 -F of the Act, as before terminating service of the respondent -workman, compensation was not offered as per law. It has also come on record that there was violation of Section 25H of the Act. Posts were available, service of the respondent -workman was terminated and immediately thereafter, employees were outsourced to do the same functions which were being performed by the respondent -workman. Taking note of the above facts, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity in service. However, prayer for grant of back wages was declined. Appellants came to this Court by filing above writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2013. Before the learned Single Judge and before this Court also, it has been vehemently contended that instead of ordering reinstatement, compensation ought to have been granted to the respondent -workman. That contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge by noting the fact that termination was mala fide, the work was available and without complying with the provisions of the Act, service of the workman was terminated and immediately thereafter, other employees were employed in service through outsourcing agency, to do the same functions which were being performed by the respondent -workman. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corpn. and anr. v. Gitam Singh, 2013 5 SCC 136to press above said argument.;