Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 5.9.2001 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar whereby the Judge, Labour Court, held that the termination of the respondent workman w.e.f. 4.12.1998 is in violation of Section 6 and (b) of the ID Act.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman did not complete 240 days but ignoring the said fact, the Judge, Labour Court gave finding that the respondent workman has completed 240 days, therefore, at the time of terminating his services, one months notice and retrenchment compensation was to be given as per Section 25 -F of the ID Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the documentary evidence produced on record when the respondent workman did not complete 240 days then there is no question of asking that the petitioner employer was under obligation to comply Section 25 -F of the ID Act, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in the award impugned. In my opinion the Judge, Labour Court considered the material evidence as well as the documentary evidence produced on record and held that the respondent workman worked w.e.f. 1.4.1984 to 10.08.1985, therefore, he has completed more than 240 days, therefore, his termination without following Section 25 -F of the Act is bad. In the opinion of this Court, the finding of fact arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court does not require any interference. However, I am of the considered view that the order of retrenchment is not sustainable in law because as per workman himself he was appointed as daily rate basis, therefore, after 29 years, it is not proper to maintain the order of retrenchment of the respondent workman in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr., reported in : (2009) 15 SCC p. 327 in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if Labour Court came to the conclusion that retrenchment of daily rated employee is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then reinstatement with full back wages is not proper and in those cases compensation should be awarded. Para 7 and 14 of the said judgment reads as under : - 7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, thee has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25 -F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been warded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.;