- (1.) This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. 7240 of 1988 (The Jorki Andewali Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd. V/s. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, and 10381 of 1988 (Pritam Singh V/s. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
(2.) Petitioner-Co-operative Agricultural Society aggrieved of Award, Annexure P-2, dated May 27, 1988 rendered bv the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with an obvious prayer to set aside the Award mentioned above.
(3.) Respondent-workman was employed as Secretary with petitioner-Management on salary of Rs. 525/- per month. He remained so employed for a period of ten years but was asked to quit his job vide order dated September 10, 1983. It was mainly pleaded before the Labour Court that the sack orders were without notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or for that matter even without compliance of pre-requisites of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The matter was contested by the Management by pleading that the workman was first discharged for participating in all illegal strike on June 3,1981 but was re-employed in conciliation proceedings on April 1, 1983 whereafter resolution was passed by the Management discharging him from service on May 1, 1983. The workman obtained stay against the order aforesaid in a suit instituted by him before the Civil Court and after the suit was dismissed as withdrawn, he has finally asked to quit on September 10,1983 on the grounds of participating in illegal strike and committing embezzlement and other misconduct. Inasmuch as the sack orders passed by the management were on the ground that he was embezzled the amount and committed other irregularities, it was necessary to hold him guilty in a domestic enquiry that was to ensue. Nothing of the kind was done and without issuing any notice or charge-sheet or holding any enquiry against him, petitioner was shown the door. The Labour Court on the finding that retrenchment of the workman was without following any procedure and, thus was illegal, reinstated him in service but declined him the back wages. In Civil Writ Petition No. 7240 of 1988 it is the order of Labour Court which is sought to be set aside whereas in the connected writ filed by the workman, the prayer is to modify the Award so as to allow him to back wages from the date he was asked to quit.;