- (1.) Petitioner-department on 1.5.1997 engaged respondent No. 1 workman to work on Muster Rolls on daily wage basis. His services were terminated with effect from 1.4.1998. feeling aggrieved with his termination, the workman served a demand notice upon the department seek ml reinstatement with continuity of services and full back-wages. On failure of the reconciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Panipat for adjudication. The workman did not file claim statement and the demand notice was treated as claim statement on his behalf. Before the Labour Court, the workman took the plea that his services were terminated illegally without any notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation in lieu thereof. On the contrary, the stand of the department was that the workman had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination. It was pleaded that since the workman left the job of his own and therefore, was not entitled to the relief prayed for. In support of their respective case, evidence was led by the parties. The learned Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence so led by the parties, counted Sundays falling during the relevant year to conclude that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. Accordingly, vide award dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) the Labour Court held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the Act, thereby ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 78.5.1997. Hence, the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner-department, seeking quashing of award dated 23.8.2005, Annexure P/5.
(2.) Upon notice of motion, respondent No. 1-workman has filed written statement justifying the impugned award, besides praying for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties;