VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD at admission stage.
(2.) THE Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the judgment and award dt. 13. 5. 2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar and notification dt. 2. 12. 2002 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and set aside. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 - workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dt. 27. 12. 2000 the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 2 - workman submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was appointed on 1. 2. 1984 on daily wage basis and worked continuously till 31. 12. 1986. It was alleged that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days in calendar year. It was also alleged that his services of the respondent No. 21 workman were terminated in flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947") in as much as before terminating the services of the respondent - workman neither one month's notice nor salary in lieu thereof was given to the respondent- workman. Even before terminating the services of the respondent- workman, no seniority list was published. Written statement was filed by the petitioners in which it was alleged that one month's notice and salary in lieu thereof to the tune of Rs. 338/- and further compensation to the tune of Rs. 1261/- was sent to the workman's house by demand deaft, which was not received by the respondent - workman and therefore, the termination of services of the respondent - workman was brought about in accordance with law and there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and it was further submitted that the respondent No. 2 - workman is not entitled to any relief prayed for.
(3.) IT has also been alleged that before raising the industrial dispute, the respondent - workman also filed a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to raise the industrial dispute before the conciliation officer. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar vide its judgment and award dtd. 13. 5. 2002 (Annex. 3), allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 2 workman and directed reinstatement of respondent- workman with 30% back wages from the date of notification i. e. 27. 12. 2000. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioners is that services of respondent-workman was terminated after following the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) in as much as one month's salary and compensation in lieu thereof has been given to the respondent-workman. ;