- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 14.3.2014 (Annexure P/4) wherein reinstatement has been granted to the respondent-workman along with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice dated 20.2.2006 (Annexure P/1) by the Labour Court, Panipat.
(2.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that vide demand notice dated 20.2.2006, respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute by stating that he was employed as Water Carrier in the Government Primary School, Chhota Khanda since 1990 and his pay was Rs. 500/- per month. His work and conduct was satisfactory and there was no complaint whatsoever. When his salary was not released for the year 2004 and 2005 and when he demanded the same he was orally removed from service from 1.1.2006 in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute being referred to the Labour Court, the plea taken was that sanction of the post was granted earlier on year to year basis from 1st March to 28th February and part time employees had been given fixed salaries as per rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The complete salary of payment had been made to the petitioner and the receipt was attached. It was submitted that the petitioner had deserted his post by his own will. He had been appointed as part time basis as 'Kahar' to carry water from nearby tap/well as no water was available in the school but now it had been made available and as such there was no need of service of the petitioner and it was only a stop gap arrangement.
(3.) The Labour Court took into account the statement of workman and Ram Phal-MW-1 and after examining the provisions of Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Act in detail noticed that the workman worked from 1990 to 2006 and rejected the submission that he was appointed on part time basis. In the absence of any appointment letter, it is further held that there was no difference between full time and part time employee under Section 2 (s) of the Act and reliance was placed upon two judgments of the Apex Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sankaralingam, 2008 10 SCC 698 and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar Vs. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another, 2009 2 SCT 342. The plea of absence was also rejected on the ground that once the appointment of the worker had been admitted, it was the duty of the management to conduct enquiry if the workman had absented from duty. No such enquiry was conducted. It was noticed that contradictory plea had been taken as on the one hand it was pleaded that he was working as Water Carrier and there was no need of worker whereas on the other hand it was pleaded that he had absented himself from duty. It was also noticed that salary at the rate of Rs. 5500/- per year had been given and therefore, keeping in view the binding precedent of the Apex Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division No.1, Panipat, 2010 3 SCT 318 and judgments of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 2 SCC 543 and Haryana Agricultural University Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another, 2011 LLR 1218 the Labour Court held that mandatory provisions of Section 25-F had not been complied with and therefore, directed reinstatement of the workman.;