DHADDHA,J. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed by the appellant - Senior Medical Officer / In-charge Hospital, ESI Hospital No.2, MIA, Alwar against the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition challenging the award dated 24.11.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the workman. The action of department was held to be illegal and unjustified. Consequential directions were issued to be reinstated with 25% back wages with full allowances from the date of his termination and from the date of award i.e. 24.11.2015, the respondent workman would be entitled to get the full allowances in accordance with rules and the services of the respondent workman were directed to be in continuous from the date of his termination i.e. 01.11.1995.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent workman submitted a statement of claim before the learned Labour Court, Alwar that he was working as Security Guard since 5.12.1989 at the rate of Rs.5/- per day rendering 12 hours duty. Services of the respondent were terminated on 01.11.1995 without any reason. Respondent workman had worked 240 days in a calendar year. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed an award in favour of respondent workman on 24.11.2015 holding that due to non-compliance of section 25(F) of the I.D. Act the action of the appellant in terminating the service of the workman is illegal and unjustified. The workman applicant is entitled to be reinstated by 25% back wages with full allowances from the date of his termination i.e. 01.11.1995. The action of department was held to be illegal and unjustified. Consequential directions were issued to be reinstated with 25% back wages with allowance from the date of his termination and from the date of award i.e. 24.11.2015, the respondent workman would be entitled to get the full allowances in accordance with rules and the services of the respondent workman were directed to be in continuous from the date of his termination i.e. 01.11.1995. The learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition.
(3.) This Court while issuing notices of the appeal to the respondent, stayed operation of the award on 23.1.2018 requiring the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs with Registrar (Judicial). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 is perverse and illegal. The learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days. He also submitted that the respondent was never appointed against the sanctioned post of Security Guard, rather, he was engaged as Gardener on daily wages basis for working not more than 2 hours per day. He submitted that the respondent was never terminated from service, he willfully abandoned the job and stopped coming on duty. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that provisions of Act are not applicable to the daily wager. So, the learned Single Judge had committed a serious legal error in passing the impugned order.;