Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE reference made by the Division Bench vide order dated 21.01.2014, for the purpose of which, the Full Bench has been constituted is to decide the vexed question as to whether the persons appointed on public posts without following proper procedure would be entitled for reinstatement in view of the violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') or in view of judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, : 2006(2) S.C.T. 462 : 2006 (4) SCC 1 only the relief of compensation could be granted in such circumstances. The questions framed by the Division Bench read thus: - "(i) Whether the principles laid down in State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others : 2006(2) S.C.T. 462 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 relating to appointment to public service would be applicable while considering reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? (ii) Whether the failure to fill up the public posts in accordance with the relevant statutory Recruitment Rules disentitles a workman for reinstatement? (iii) Whether a workman can be paid compensation for wrongful termination effected in violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in lieu of reinstatement - Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that it is only in cases where there was victimization or unfair labour practice, this Court would direct reinstatement and mere violation of Section 25 -F of the Act would not entail reinstatement as a matter of right as it would be violative of the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) since it would amount to regularizing an employee under orders of the Court and thus, submitted that compensation would be the only adequate remedy.
(2.) THOUGH , the sole question of law as such has to be decided in terms of the reference which has been made to the Full Bench, a brief reference to the facts has to be necessarily made. Perusal of the demand notice dated 24.05.1997 (Annexure P -7) served by the respondent workman -Sarbjit Singh would go on to show that he took the plea that he was appointed as Octroi Clerk/Maharar on 01.03.1995 and worked upto 31.03.1997. Vide notice dated 01.04.1997, the services were terminated and the post against which he was working was permanent and regular. No notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation having been paid or offered to him while terminating his services, he had claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It had further been mentioned that he had served a demand notice for regularization of his services and on getting the said notice, his services had been terminated and that he was unemployed since his termination and he was drawing Rs. 1,550/ - per month as salary and that junior persons had been retained.
(3.) IN the reply, the stand of the appellant's counsel was that the workman was working on a contract basis and the retrenchment had been done after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and as per resolution dated 26.03.1997. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was also pleaded by submitting that the contract was for one year upto 31.03.1997 after obtaining sanction from the Director, Local Government for specified work and specified period. There was no vacancy and no juniors had been retained and new hands had been recruited. As per the Resolution No. 50 dated 26.03.1997, it had been unanimously decided to retrench all clerks and peons employed on contract basis on or after 31.03.1997. The demand drafts of Rs. 4,686/ - on account of wages for the month of March, one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation were delivered alongwith the notice personally on the workman but he had refused to accept the same in spite of being sent by registered post also.;