- (1.) This order shall dispose of both the aforementioned writ petitions since common questions of law and fact are involved in those cases.
(2.) The facts have been taken from CWP No.10095 of 1996. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 9.4.1996 passed by Labour Court, Ludhiana, whereby the workmen have been held entitled to reinstatement with full backwages from the date of notice of retrenchement vide the award in question. The Labour Court had consolidated total number of 14 references vide order dated 5.1.1996 and facts from reference No.1424 of 1992 was taken into consideration. The claim of the respondent-workman was that he had been working with the management as a daily paid workers for a period of two years and was getting salary of Rs.825/- per month. The services of the workman terminated on 28.4.1990 without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry and payment of retrenchment compensation. The termination was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") since he had worked for 444 days. The petitioner-Board took the plea that services of the workman were retrenched on 28.4.1990 due to the completion of the work and the termination was made after service of notice. The workman was offered retrenchment compensation but he has refused to receive the same and the amount of compensation was sent through registered post but the claimant refused to receive the same. During arguments before the Labour Court, the workman took the plea that there were more than 100 employees, who were working with the management and as such retrenchment was to be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act vide which prior permission of the Government was to be obtained and three months notice was to be given.
(3.) The plea of the petitioner-Board was that the workman had not appeared was rejected and it was held that it was for the management to show that termination was in accordance with the provisions of Section 25- N (7) had been complied with or not since the management witness Birbal- UDC himself appeared and deposed that the total strength of the workmen was 536. Accordingly, prior permission in terms of the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act having not been taken and the management having only given one month's pay notice, had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions. As such, reinstatement was directed.;