- (1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing award dated 16-11-1992 and prayed for direction to reinstate the petitioner back in service. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to make payment of salary and grant him benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consider his case prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant his semi-permanent status in service upon completion of two years.
(2.) According to facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed in the month of August 1981 on the post of Chowkidar on daily-rated basis and his services were terminated with effect from 1-8-1994. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Sriganganagar and, after failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter was sent to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication of the following question : XXX XXX XXX After the reference was made, a claim petition was filed by the petitioner workman and reply was also filed by the respondents. Thereafter, certain documents were filed before the Labour Court, Bikaner and affidavits of the workman and one Banwari Lal, Jr. Engineer were filed. After considering all aspects of the matter as well as documentary and oral evidence on record, the learned Labour Court arrived at the finding that the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 1-8-1984 illegally though he had completed 240 days in preceding one calender year and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the Labour Court passed order that in view of the reply filed by the respondents that the Sub-Division where the petitioner was appointed, is abolished on 30-6-1985, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to wages only upto 30-6-1985. The Labour Court further observed in the order that if, on 30-6-1985, the date on which North-East CAD Bhakra Sub-Division was abolished, any retrenchment was made after following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of other employees then petitioner shall be entitled for the same relief under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Judge, Labour Court has committed error of law exceeding his jurisdiction while passing the order that if, on 30-6-1985, the date on which North-East CAD Bhakra Sub- Division was abolished, any retrenchment was made after following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of other employees then petitioner shall be entitled for the same relief under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act because once the reference is made by the appropriate Government only to adjudicate upon the validity of the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 18-1984, further jurisdiction to travel beyond the reference cannot be assumed by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workman petitioner were illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act then it is obvious that the sub-Division where the petitioner workman was appointed was in existence on the date of such illegal termination. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if on a subsequent date the said Sub-Division was abolished, the learned Labour Court had nothing to do with that aspect of the matter inasmuch as it was not the subject-matter of the reference made for adjudication to the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approach of the Labour Court is totally erroneous. It is prayed that once it has been held by the Judge, Labour Court that petitioner workman's services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act then the workman was to be reinstated in service with full back wages.;