H .R.PANWAR,J - (1.) THIS writ petition, in the nature of certiorari, has been filed for modifying the award dated 6.6.2000 (Annex.1) by way of granting the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner on the post of Driver, enhancing the amount of compensation and quashing the Notification dated 8.8.2000 (Annex.2) to the aforesaid extent.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver w.e.f. 4.1.1988 on a consolidated salary of Rs.750/ - per month, which was enhanced from time to time. He was retrenched from service w.e.f 31.12.1994 without complying with the provisions of S.25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the I.D. Act '). On a reference being made, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court -cum -lndustrial Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, the Labour Court '). The Labour Court, vide its award dated 6.6.2000 (Annex.1), held the retrenchment illegal but instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the record of the case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification with the Labour Court in denying reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner when it had come to the conclusion that the retrenchment was illegal, the Labour Court has not assigned any reason for denying reinstatement and back wages though it is well settled that whenever the Court finds that retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of S.25 -F of the I.D. Act, the relief of reinstatement with back wages should be allowed. Alternatively, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compensation awarded is too low.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the award impugned made by the Labour Court.;