- (1.) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13469 of 2005, titled State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another, 1644 of 1999 titled The State of Haryana and another v. Prem Chand another, 9713 of 2002 titled Divisional Forest Officer, Mahendergarh v. Rajinder Kumar and others, 9714 of 2002 titled Divisional Forest Officer v. Madan Lal and others, 17791 of 2003, titled State of Haryana v. Ram Phal and another, 9380 of 2004, titled State of Haryana v. Om and others, 7923 of 2006 titled State of Haryana v. Dharam Singh and another, 14972 of 2006 titled Executive Engineer, Western Yamuna Canal v. Presiding Officer and others, 17729 of 2006 titled Director Sports & Youth Affairs, Haryana v. Patel and another, 19276 of 2006 titled The Sub Divisional Engineer v. Jai Kumar and others, 3322 of 2007 titled Divisional Forest Officer v. Mehar Singh and another, 3324 of 2007 titled Divisional Forest Officer v. Mange Ram and another, 3569 of 2007 titled Divisional Forest Officer v. Sube Singh and another, 3570 of 2007, Chief Conservator and another v. Rohtash and another, 12403 of 2007 titled Executive Engineer v. Satender Kumar and others, 12417 of 2007 titled Executive Engineer v. Vinod and others, 13487 of 2007, titled Divisional Forest Officer and another v. Diwan Singh, 14824 of 2007, titled Divisional Forest Officer and another v. Gurnam Chand and another, by consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, they are clubbed for the purpose of disposal, heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 13469 of 2005.
(2.) It is pleaded in the petition that the respondent/workman was engaged as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar, who is unskilled worker, on purely daily wage basis on 1.11.1995 with the office of the petitioner/management and the workman worked upto February, 1997 as per his requirement and paid as such. The services of workman/respondent No. 1 were retrenched as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as there was severe financial crunch. In compliance with the instructions, Annexure P-1, retrenchment notice as per the Act was issued to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner vide letter No. 2207 dated 31.3.1997 in which he was offered a sum of Rs. 2,165/- i.e. one month salary amounting to Rs. 1,443/- and Rs. 772 as 15 days' pay as retrenchment compensation. The respondent No. 1 did not accept the retrenchment notice and the compensation from the office of concerned Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health Sub Division, Ganaur. The respondent No. 1/workman did not turn up to receive the same.
(3.) It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1/workman then filed a demand notice dated 14.6.2000 before the Labour Court, Sonipat which was duly replied. The matter was accordingly sent to the Government for making a reference and a reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat.;