Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd vs Rajesh And Anr on 20 February, 2014
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
LPA No.618 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.618 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.02.2014
The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Sonepat
... Appellant
Versus
Rajesh and anr.
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.1.
--
JASBIR SINGH, J.(Oral)
CM No.1783-LPA of 2010 For the reasons given in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 125 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA No.618 of 2010 Rajesh, respondent No.-1- workman was appointed as Computer Assistant on 01.12.1998. His services were terminated on 15.09.1999. It was the case of the respondent no.1-workman Kumar Dinesh 2014.03.03 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh LPA No.618 of 2010 2 that his termination order was issued without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further alleged that the person, junior to the respondent-workman, namely Narender was kept in service whereas his service was terminated. It was also alleged that one person was appointed after termination of the service of the workman and he had been working. The workman raised an industrial dispute. The matter was sent to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide award dated 27.11.2002 termination order of the workman was set aside and he was ordered to be re-instated with continuity of service on payment of full back wages.
Aggrieved against the said award, the Management came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide order dated 16.11.2009.
It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the said writ petition, on 24.04.2003, the appellant- Management was directed to reinstate the workman. It was further directed that if the Management failed to reinstate the workman before the next date, it would forfeit the right to be heard on the merits of the case. The workman was taken back in service on 11.06.2003 and he is continuing as such.
In view of the facts mentioned above, at this stage, the claim of the Management to up-hold the termination order of Kumar Dinesh 2014.03.03 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh LPA No.618 of 2010 3 the workman, can not be entertained. After his termination, the poor respondent-workman was taken back in service and is on duty for the last more than 10 years.
Counsel for the appellant-Management states that let back wages be not paid to the respondent-workman on account of his re-instatement in service.
To the prayer made, no objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent-workman. It is also said that as the workman had been taken back in service, he will not claim any back wages.
In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of. The respondent-workman shall be entitled to all the benefits granted to him by the Labour Court except back wages.
(JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE 20.02.2014 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2014.03.03 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh