- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4853 & 4739 of 2014, involving common questions of facts and law. However, for dictating the order, the facts have been taken from CWP No.4853 of 2014, titled BPS Mahila Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Mukesh Kumar & others .
(2.) CHALLENGE has been laid in the present writ petition, by the petitioner - Management, to the order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P10), reinstating the workman with continuity of service and back wages to the tune of 50%. It is pertinent to mention that the earlier writ petitions, filed by the workman, i.e., CWP Nos. 2522 and 2527 of 2014, against the same award, whereby they had agitated their claim of backwages, only to the tune of 50%, had been dismissed by this Court on 11.02.2014 in limine.
(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that vide the demand notice dated 04.07.2007 (Annexure P2), respondent No.1 -workman took the plea that he was appointed as a Sweeper in Technical Institute, Gurukul, Bhainswal Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District, Sonepat, Haryana -respondent No.3, in February, 2006. The workman was paid monthly salary of Rs. 2115/ - upto July, 2006. His salary was reduced to Rs. 1600/ - per month from August, 2006 and he was informed that his services have been regularised on 12.09.2006. When a demand was made for the deducted salary and regularisation, his services were terminated. It was alleged that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F, 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, Panipat, it was submitted by the petitioner that the claimant had been appointed by the Mess Committee and respondent No.3 -Institute was no longer in existence. It was pleaded that no procedure was followed in the appointment of the workman as the claimant was not issued any appointment letter and there was no question of regularisation. The said Institute was not functional nor the hostel had been in operation and all the staff, who were appointed by the Mess Committee, had already been relieved from their charge and there was no post of Sweeper, either permanent or regular. The workman examined himself as WW1 and one Ram Chander Verma as WW2 whereas Varender Singh, Legal Assistant was examined as MW1 and they deposed in favour of their respective stances taken by them in their pleadings. After examining the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that as per the bank statement, produced by WW2, salary was transferred from the account of respondent No.3 -Institute to the account of the workman and the last entry of transfer was made on 14.06.2007. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that there was a relationship of employer -employee between the workman and the respondent No.3 -Institute and no notice or pay, in lieu of retrenchment compensation was given to the workman on account of the fact that he was a daily wager. It was, in such circumstances, reference was decided in favour of the workman and he was held entitled for reinstatement along with 50% back wages, from the date of the demand notice, i.e., 04.07.2007. It is pertinent to mention here that the Labour Court also examined the evidence led by the petitioner -University and noticed that respondent No.3 -Institute had merged with the petitioner -University in the year 2006 and the workman had worked from August, 2006 to 11.06.2007. Thus, a factual finding, regarding the relationship of employer -employee, was noticed and reinstatement had been ordered along with 50% back wages.;