Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred by District Manager, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Jind Road, Kaithal and the Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. S.C.O. No. 825 -826, Sector 22 -A, Chandigarh praying that impugned award passed by Labour Court, Ambala (Annexure P -1) be quashed; whereby Respondent -workman has been directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. Petitioner -management has stated that Respondent -workman was employed as Security Guard on daily wages on contract basis for watch and ward of the stocks of food -grains and other assets of the Corporation as per the availability of work at Kaithal. It is further stated that when no work was left, services of the Respondent -workman as Security Guard were terminated in the month of November, 2003.
(2.) RESPONDENT -workman stated before the Labour Court that he was employed in 7/2000. Thereafter, he continuously/worked without any break upto November, 2003 and his services were wrongly terminated and while doing so persons junior to him were retained in services and fresh persons were also employed by the management after the termination of the Respondent -workman. Therefore, the same amounted to violation of provisions of Section 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The Labour Court returned finding of fact -that Respondent -workman had worked for 243 days, therefore, his termination without paying any compensation amounted to violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. Labour Court further held that Petitioner -management has violated the provisions of Section 25 -G and 25 -H of the Act as they have not denied the assertions made by the workman in paras 4 and 6 of the claim statement to this effect. Labour Court concluded that there has been violation of Section 25 -F to 25 -H, workman is entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
(3.) WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahi and Anr. : 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC) 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 in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back 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, 2007 (112) FLR 1066 (SC) :, 2006 (7) SCC 755).;