Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred by Superintending Engineer, PWD B&R, Bhiwani (hereinafter called the management) against Surender respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the workman). Petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned award (Annexure P -6) passed by learned Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby respondent -workman has been ordered to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50 per cent back wages from the date of demand notice.
(2.) IN the present petition, notice of motion was issued. Respondent -workman served a demand notice (Annexure P -1) on 20.09.2002, wherein it was stated that he was engaged as Baildar by Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD B&R Branch, Bhiwani, Division No. 1 on 01.02.1994. Services of the workman were terminated on 01.07.2000. It has been stated in the demand notice that earlier thereto, workman had preferred a Civil Writ Petition along with his other colleagues for regularization of the services. It has been stated that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding 12 calendar months and by terminating his services without issuing any notice, petitioner -management has violated provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been further stated therein that the principle of last come first go was not adhered to and there is a violation of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The matter was referred by the State of Haryana to the Labour Court. Workman submitted claim statement (Annexure P -2), in which he reiterated what has been stated in demand notice (Annexure P -1). Written statement (Annexure P -3) was filed to the claim statement, wherein it was stated that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of patch work and petty repair work from time to time and due to the paucity of funds and upgrading of the roads, his services were dispensed with and a notice under Section 25 -F of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 27.04.2001 along with retrenchment compensation of Rs. 2,775/ -. But the same was not intentionally and deliberately collected by the workman. Learned Labour Court held that the compensation was given to the workman not at the time of the termination but subsequently.
(3.) THEREFORE , it was held that there was violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. It was further held that juniors to the workman have been retained and management has also committed violation of Section 25 -G of the Act. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. : (2006)11SCC684 , wherein it has been held as under: 28. We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that there had been a violation of Sections 25 -G and 25 -H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11 -A must be exercised judiciously.' The workman must be employed by State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with hack wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of his services, a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - is awarded to the respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments, See: State of Rajasthan v. Ghyan Chand, (2006)7 S.C.C. 755.;