- (1.) In the present petition prayer is for quashing of the award dated 16.8.2011, Annexure P5, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar vide which while answering the reference in favour of respondent No.1, directions have been issued to reinstate her in service.
(2.) Mr.Sunil Nehra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the petitioner, would contend that finding has been recorded by the Labour Court as regards violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') and which, in turn, pre-supposes a valid termination, and respondent No.1 was at best entitled to be re-employed from the date when another employee, namely, Smt.Sheela had been employed. Learned counsel contends that reinstatement in service could not have been directed. It has also been argued that respondent No.1 had been employed purely on daily wage basis and such engagement was not in pursuance to any regular selection process and as such, would be construed to be in violation of the scheme of equality envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court cannot sustain. It has also been argued that respondent No.1 has been out of service since the year 2005 and the Labour Court, while directing reinstatement, has not taken into consideration the passage of time that has since elapsed and has also overlooked the aspect that another workman has since been employed and working for the past many years and her services would have to be dispensed with to accommodate respondent No.1. Further submission raised is that even if there was a violation of Section 25-H of the Act, services of respondent No.1 had been dis-engaged in pursuance to an enquiry having been conducted and the Management having lost confidence in the employee. Mr.Nehra would submit that it would not be in the interest of the petitioner-School if respondent No.1 is permitted to be reinstated in service at this stage.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would support the impugned award by submitting that the plea taken on behalf of the employer is contradictory. On the one hand, it had been stated that respondent No.1 had left the job of her own accord and, on the other hand, a plea had been raised that an enquiry had been conducted and her work and conduct was not upto the mark. Learned counsel would argue that the demand notice had been issued by respondent No.1 without any delay and a finding as regards violation of Section 25-H of the Act having been recorded, there would be no infirmity as regards relief of reinstatement having been granted. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also argued that the Labour Court has balanced the equities and has denied the backwages and under such circumstances, it would not be a fit case for this Court to intervene in its supervisory jurisdiction, insofar as the impugned award is concerned.;