- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition, filed by the petitionerManagement, is to the award dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure P12), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, whereby respondent No.2- workman was held to be in employment of the petitioner-school and entitled to full back wages with continuity of service along with 9% interest from the date of termination till final realisation.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that demand notice dated 13.09.2004 (Annexure P3), under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') was served by the respondent-workman that he was appointed on 01.01.2002 and the last drawn salary was Rs. 4055/- per month. He was not allowed to join duty on 25.08.2004. It was alleged that he was not served any chargesheet and no notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid, which was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and another person had been appointed in his place. A settlement was, however, arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act that the workman will join from 14.10.2014 with continuity of service and earned wages, if due, will be paid at the time of joining duty.
(3.) Vide letter dated 15.10.2004 (Annexure P5), the school wrote to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer that the workman had joined duties on 14.10.2004 but had not come on duty on 15.10.2004. Further communication was also addressed on 26.10.2004 that he never follows orders and also misbehaves and had remained absent on 23.10.2004 to 25.10.2004. Similar correspondence was also addressed regarding the period of absence from 27.10.2004 to 29.10.2004. Thereafter, the school paid him one month's pay by taking the stand that he had been appointed on 01.07.2004 and inspite of the settlement made since he was absenting in duty, his name had been removed from the register. A second demand notice was issued on 08.11.2004 (Annexure P7) by the workman alleging that he was not being allowed to mark his presence since the date of compromise and on 02.11.2004 also, when he had gone to join duty, he was not allowed to enter the gate. Resultantly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the same set of allegations, claiming that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act.;