ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner-department has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the award dated 19-5-2006 passed by the Labour Court, ordering re-in-statement of respondent-workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages. It emerges out from the record that the respondent No. 1-workman raised an industrial dispute challenging termination of his services by the petitioner department. It was his case that his services were illegally terminated on 3-6-1997 without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act), whereas he had served the department continuously for the last two years. Besides, violation of provisions of sections 25G and 25H of the Act was claimed.
(2.) His claim was resisted by the petitioner-department by filing a detailed reply, the pivotal stand of the petitioner-department was that on the alleged date of termination i.e. 3-6-1997, the workman was not in their services. As such, question of termination of his services on 3-6-1997 does not arise. Rather the workman served the department from January 1996 to April 1996 and thereafter from August 1996 to April 1997, as per requirement of work. Thereafter, he was relieved of his duties due to non-availability of work.
(3.) The Labour Court after analysing the evidence produced by both the parties held that there was violation of provisions of section 25F of the Act while terminating the services of the workman. It accordingly set aside the termination of the services of the workman and as said above ordered his re-instatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages.;