- (1.) PRESENT Writ petition has been preferred by the Meham Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd. , meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak through its Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as, 'the management') with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned award dated October 30, 2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour court, Rohtak be set aside, whereby respondent no. 2 Satbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the workman') has been ordered to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and 50 percent back wages.
(2.) RESPONDENT-WORKMAN, on August 24, 1991, served a demand notice (Annexure P-1)upon the management, wherein it was stated that he was engaged on December 15, 1990 as a driver on daily wage basis and the management terminated the services of the workman on august 3, 1991 without assigning any reason. It has been further submitted that no notice was given to the workman, no enquiry was held, no show cause notice was issued and even retrenchment compensation was not paid. Therefore, it has been stated that there has been violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act' ). In the demand notice, it was further stated that one Krishan, who was engaged later than the workman, is continuing to work with the management. Therefore, there has been also contravention of Section 25-H and 25-N of the act.
(3.) THE State Government had made a reference to the Labour Court. The workman had submitted claim statement (Annexure P-2), in which averments made in the claim statement, it was disputed that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last 12 preceding months. It was stated that only worked for 207 days. It was submitted that regular selection through employment exchange was made by the Selection committee under the Rules on October 28, 1991 and December 26, 1991, therefore, respondent No. 2-workman, being a daily wager, cannot equate himself with regularly selected Drivers. Inference can be drawn that workman had to make way for regularly selected persons. Labour Court held that there has been, violation of Section 25-G of the Act.;