- (1.) The petitioner-Management, by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the award dated 14.5.2002 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent-3) (Labour Court - for short). In terms of the said award of the Labour Court, Lal Chand - Workman (respondent-1) has been reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. A further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 1.3.2006 (Annexure P2) vide which the Labour Court (respondent-3) has, on an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act - for short) directed the payment of wages amounting to Rs. 1,16,413.82.
(2.) The case set up by respondent-1 - Workman was that he worked with the petitioner-Management continuously for the period from 10.5.1998 to 4.2.2000 as a Security Employee on monthly wages of Rs. 1800/-. He used to work 12 hours per day. On 4.2.2000, he asked the petitioner-Management to pay him the minimum wages @ Rs. 1902/- per month. On account of this, the Management got annoyed and by a verbal order, terminated his services in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. He, by a demand notice dated 11.2.2000, raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act to the Labour Court. The petitioner-Management in the proceedings before the Labour Court was proceeded against ex-parte on 16.1.2002. In his ex-parte evidence, the respondent-1 Workman reiterated his claim. He stated that he worked for more than 240 days and wages were given to him on the voucher of Divine Manpower and Security Services, Delhi but he worked with the petitioner-Management under the directions of its Officers. He stated that there were two Chowkidars of day and night. In proof of the same, he tendered the security attendance register and entry register which were Mark-A, Mark-B and Mark-C. The petitioner- Management did not lead any evidence before the Labour Court as it had been proceeded against ex-parte. The Labour Court, after due consideration of the case vide its order dated 14.5.2002 (Annexure P1) set aside the termination of respondent-1 Workman and ordered his reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of the demand notice. Thereafter, respondent-1 Workman filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act in which he claimed wages to which he was entitled to for the period from 11.2.2002 to October 2004. Copies of the application were given to the petitioner-Management but again none appeared on its behalf. Accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte. The respondent-1 Workman appeared as AW1 and proved his case. In view of the award dated 14.5.2002 (Annexure P1), it was held by the Labour Court that as per details given of the impugned period by respondent-1 Workman in his application, a sum of Rs. 1,16,413.82 was due towards the petitioner-Management as arrears of wages for the period from 11.2.2002 to October, 2004. The application of respondent-1-Workman was allowed ex-parte on 1.3.2006 (Annexure P2). The said orders (Annexures P1 and P2), as already noticed, are assailed in the present petition.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.;