- (1.) The Labour Court has awarded reinstatement and full backwages with continuity of service to the respondent-workman by the impugned award dated 17th April 2006. The State of Haryana is before this Court assailing the award of the Labour Court primarily on the ground that the workman had not completed 240 days of service from 23rd June, 2000 till the date his services were dispensed with on 1st September, 2000 within which period he had put in according to the department only 173 working days from September, 1999 to September, 2000.
(2.) A few further facts are necessary to understand the controversy at hand. Initially, the respondent-workman was appointed as a Tractor Driver by the petitioner-Management on 23rd June, 1995 on monthly wages paid in accordance with minimum rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District. His services were terminated on 1st January, 2000. This gave rise to disputes between the parties. The disputes were resolved in conciliation proceedings before the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Ambala on 22nd June, 2000 when a settlement was arrived at between the parties duly signed. In terms of the settlement, the workman was reinstated in service on 23rd June, 2000 with continuity of service and other benefits as is recorded in paragraph 4 of the award of the Labour Court. In this way, the workman was forcibly deprived of his labour from 1st January, 2000 to 22nd June, 2000. When the department reinstated the workman pursuant to the settlement and gave him continuity of service, it would follow sequitur that the period between 1st January, 2000 and 22nd June, 2000 has to be treated as one spent on duty. If that is so, then the contention of Mr. Yadav, learned DAG, Haryana appearing for the Management that the workman had not put in 240 days of continuous service in the 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination, cannot be accepted for the reason that the period between January, 2000 and May, 2000 has to be treated by deeming fiction as one spent on duty and part of service in view of the terms of the settlement and the unspent days of those months would have to be counted towards continuous service in terms of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). If that is so, then the Labour Court committed no error in returning a finding that the test of Section 25-B is satisfied and sequentially there was a violation committed of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act making the retrenchment legally bad. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement and backwages with continuity of service. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or the award which has been passed after appreciating the evidence and materials on record. It is not for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court in writ jurisdiction as explained in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S.Radhakrishan and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 477 where the parameters of challenge in the special remedy provided by Article 226 of the Constitution and have been laid down.
(3.) Mr.Yadav, learned counsel for the Management submits that even when this matter came up for hearing on 12th October, 2006, it was given out to this Court that a regular incumbent had been appointed through selection on the post of Tractor Driver. The learned State counsel was asked to obtain instructions with regard to payment of compensation to the workman. In the subsequent order dated 2nd November, 2006, it has been recorded that the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, despite several communications sent by him and attempts made to obtain instructions had failed to receive any response from the Divisional Forest Officer, Ambala Division, Ambala and in these circumstances, learned counsel pleaded no instructions upon which the Court took a serious view and issued show-cause notice as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against the Divisional Forest Officer and he was asked to be present in person on the date fixed. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ambala appeared before this Court on 13th November, 2006 and sought time to take appropriate steps pursuant to the show cause notice. On 14th November, 2006, he tendered an unqualified apology by way of an affidavit dated 14th November, 2006 pleading that he had not received intimation well before the date fixed, and therefore, could not be present. The apology was accepted. The Officer was discharged and contempt proceedings dropped. The matter continued pending on different dates. On 14th January, 2008, the petition was admitted to regular hearing and in the meanwhile, an interim order was passed staying the operation of impugned order, subject to provisions of Section 17-B of the Act. An affidavit was filed by the workman that he was not gainfully employed and was entitled to last drawn wages. Despite many adjournments, the State failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and an order was passed on 30th July, 2008 that compliance of Section 17-B of the Act was not made and the petitioner was directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17- B of the Act within one month or face contempt proceedings. It appears that that was not done. In these circumstances, the matter has been placed before this Court on its regular Board and was taken up for final disposal today itself.;