- (1.) This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing C.W.P. No. 14943 of 2013, filed by the appellants. By filing above writ petition, the appellants had laid challenge to an award dated 28.2.2013, ordering reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages. As per facts on record, respondent-workman was taken in service on 1.10.1992 as a Ground man. He worked upto 7.12.1999. On that date, his service was terminated. He raised a dispute. Matter was adjudicated upon by the competent Court and the appellant was directed to reinstate the workman in service with all consequential benefits. In pursuance to the order above mentioned, the workman was reinstated in service as a Sweeper on 15.10.2007. He worked upto 8.10.2008. Again his service was terminated. It was his case that termination was ordered Krishan Gopal without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act). Dispute raised by the workman was taken up by respondent No. 2 and after evidence led by both the parties, it was opined that the workman had completed 240 days in service during the relevant period and his service was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: 9. Keeping in view the arguments extended by both the parties, in my considered opinion as far as the workman having been terminated earlier on 7.12.1999 and thereafter having been reinstated w.e.f. 15.10.2007 with continuity in service vide award of the labour court Ex. W-1 and thereafter the order of the Hon'ble High Court Ex. MW-1/5 and the workman having been terminated again on 8.10.2008 vide letter Ex. W-2 are admitted facts. That as far as the workman having completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination i.e. 8.10.2008 is concerned, the workman has stated that he has been continuously working w.e.f. 15.10.2007 until 8.10.2008 whereas the respondents have alleged that the workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months as he has been working with breaks, but the respondents have failed to prove the same as no record pertaining to the attendance of the workman has been brought forward as deposed by MW-1 in his cross-examination regarding he not having brought any attendance register Krishan Gopal pertaining to the workman. That as such withholding of the relevant documents calls for drawing an adverse inference against the respondents and leads to an irresistible conclusion that the workman did completed 240 days continuous service in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. 10. The workman having completed 240 days continuous service as stated above, as such could be terminated only after having been given one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation as provided under section 25-F of the Act. That the respondents paid retrenchment compensation of only 15 days as deposed by MW- 1 in his cross-examination and as depicted in Ex. MW-1/9 by taking the service of the workman w.e.f. 15.10.2007 to 8.10.2008, as according to the respondents his earlier period of service could not be considered as he did not earn any wages from 7.12.1999 to 15.10.2007 as per Hon'ble High Court's order Ex. MW-1/5. That in my considered opinion the said contention of the respondents is not tenable since the Hon'ble High Court vide order Ex. MW-1/5 maintained continuity of service of the workman w.e.f. 7.12.1999 i.e. the date of his earlier termination as held by the labour court vide award Ex. W-1, although quashing the award of the labour court to the extent of back wages. That since the workman was granted the benefit of continuity in service w.e.f. 7.12.1999, as such the respondents were bound to calculate the retrenchment Krishan Gopal compensation for every completed year of continuous service w.e.f. 7.12.1999 as envisaged under section 25-F(b) of the Act. That since the respondents have not done so, the retrenchment compensation is in violation of section 25-F(b) of the Act, as such the order of termination dated 8.10.2008 is illegal and the workman becomes entitled to reinstatement as prayed for.
(2.) By opining as above, claim petition filed by the workman was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages. Appellant came to this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 14943 of 2013 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.7.2013. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Appeal is barred by limitation of 100 days. Explanation given is flimsy However, despite that we chose to look into merits of the case.;