- (1.) This petition has been moved by Hardeep Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 22.5.1998 Annexure P.23 and award dated 1.6.1998 Annexure P.24 and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back-wages as his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and/or for remanding the case back to Labour Court below at Jalandhar for summoning the record as per application Annexure P.22 and for deciding the case afresh.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner came to the service of the respondent- Corporation on 1.11.1980 as Chowkidar. He continuously worked till 30.6.1984, when his services were terminated with effect from 1.7.1984 without making payment of retrenchment compensation, or notice pay. He sent the demand notice dated 9.10.1984 Annexure P.1 to the authorities for reinstating him with continuity of service and back-wages. The appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for adjudication. He filed the statement of claim before the Labour Court. The respondent- Management also filed its written statement Annexure P.4 pleading that the job against which the workman was engaged was completed and, therefore, there was no alternative work with the Corporation and he could not be allowed to continue in service. He was paid his wages upto 29.1.1984 and nothing was due. The respondent- Management filed another written statement Annexure P.5 pleading that the workman worked up to 29.1.1984 and after receiving his wages up to date, he left the job on his own accord. The petitioner had moved an application Annexure P.6 for impleading the management of PUNSUP, Chandigarh as a party to the case, which was declined by the Labour Court.
(3.) After hearing the representatives of both the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Labour Court vide its award dated 28.8.1996 Annexure P.7 rejected the case of the petitioner. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6420 of 1997 challenging Annexure P.7. The Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure P.21 quashed Annexure P.7 and remanded back the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision. The petitioner after remand, put in an application Annexure P.22 for summoning the record to prove Annexures P.8 to P.17 as well as attendance register for the period from 29.1.1984 to 30.6.1984, which was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, vide order dated 22.5.1998 Annexure P.23. Ultimately, the Labour Court declined the reference vide Annexure P.24. That Annexure P.23 and P.24 being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Act deserve to be undone. There was no temptation with the petitioner to increase the period of service by five months from February 1984 to June 1984 as he had actually worked with the respondent- Management from 1.11.1980 to 30.6.1984 and his services were terminated from 1.7.1984. The petitioner- workman was a Chowkidar posted at the gate of the Godown of the Corporation from where the material used to go out only through the gate passes. Annexure P.8 was brought on the record of the Labour Court as Ex.W-1 and then as Ex.M-12. Sarvshri Jaswant Singh, Baldev Singh, Sohan Singh, Inder Kumar, Swaran Singh, Ram Bahadur, Amrik Singh, Maan Singh, Darshan Singh, Dalip Singh, Om Parkash and Anokh Singh, who were junior to the petitioner were kept in service at the same place where the petitioner was working, though his services were terminated. The services of all these juniors were subsequently terminated. They raised industrial dispute in the Labour Court at Jalandhar. Vide Annexure P.18, a common award, they were ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. They are still in service and their services have been regularised. One of the order regularising the services of Anokh Singh is Annexure P.18/A. The Management had taken two different pleas in two written statements filed by the Labour Court. In Annexure P.4, it has been averred that the services of the petitioner were terminated since the work was over and in the other one i.e., Annexure P.5, it has been mentioned that he had left the service on 29.1.1984 on his own. The impugned order Annexure P.23 and the impugned award Annexure P.24 are illegal, being violative of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act. Lastly, it has been prayed that the petitioner may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages as per the reasons embodied in this petition.;