- (1.) THE State -petitioners have instituted the instant writ application, questioning the legality and validity of the award dated 5th January, 2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Alwar, while answering the reference in favour of the respondent -workman, holding the termination of his employment as illegal and invalid.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The respondent -workman was initially engaged in the year 1983, and was paid Rs.250/ - per month. Since his services were terminated on 29th April, 1993, he instituted writ application before the High Court. The writ application was disposed off vide order dated 8th September, 1995, with liberty to the respondent -workman to avail of the alternative remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute raised resulted into a failure report by the Conciliation Officer and as a consequence, a reference by the State Government on 20th January, 2006; answered vide impugned award.
(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Alwar, taking into consideration, the statement of claim, response filed on behalf of the State -petitioners, evidence adduced and upon hearing the representatives of the parties made the impugned award dated 5th January, 2011. The retrenchment of the respondent -workman was held to be illegal and invalid for violation of the mandate of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947. The respondent -workman has been granted the relief of continuity of service with 15% of back wages from the date of retrenchment i.e. 29th April, 1993, up to the date of the award i.e. 5th January, 2012. Learned counsel for the State -petitioners reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application strenuously argued that though the respondent -workman has already been reinstated yet he has instituted execution proceedings, which are pending. While assailing the legality and validity of the impugned award, the learned counsel asserted that the respondent -workman was neither in the employment of the petitioners nor completed more than 240 days, in the calender year, preceding his retrenchment.;