IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance of provisions of section 25F and G makes order of termination void ab initio entitling the work man to reinstatement with full back wages.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the workman, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 2245 of 2011 (O & M) dated 19.09.2013 affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.04.2010 passed in C.W.P. No. 9532 of 2001 by which Award dated 27.07.2000 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, in Reference No. 205 of 1997 is set aside, raising certain questions of law and urging various legal grounds in support of the same.

3. In nutshell, facts are stated for the purpose of finding out whether the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench warrants interference by this Court in this appeal.

4. The appellant-workman was working as daily paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer/Engineer, Provincial Division No. 3, PWD B & R Karnal since 1.1.1993 and remained in service upto December, 1993. He had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year. His services were terminated on 31.12.1993 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The respondent-management neither issued notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was given to him. The principle of 'last come first go' was not followed as provided under Section 25G of the Act and the persons who were juniors to him in service were retained.

Therefore, he has raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Act before the Conciliation Officer requesting for setting aside the order of termination as the same is void ab initio in law and sought an order for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits. As the workman's demand made in his Notice dated 27.11.1996 was not complied with, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the State Government of Haryana. The State Government of Haryana in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication as per the points of dispute. The same was registered as Case Reference No. 205 of 1997 for adjudication of the dispute.

5. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court answered the points of dispute referred to it. Both the parties filed their respective statements inter alia justifying their demand and order of termination passed against the workman. The respondent-management has taken preliminary objections contending that Reference is bad in law as necessary parties are not impleaded to the order of reference, namely, Sub Divisional Engineer, Province Sub Division No.8, PWD (B & R) Karnal, the claim of the workman is time barred and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the respondent-employer. Further, the appellant was employed on daily wages muster roll by the Divisional Engineer, Provincial Sub-Division No. 8, PWD (B & R), Karnal, in the month of January, 1993 and he left the job on his own accord in August, 1993 and he has not completed 240 days in that Sub Division. It was further pleaded by the respondent-employer that some other daily wage workmen who were working along with him in August, 1993 continued to work in September, 1993 as well and if the workman attended the duty in September, 1993 there is no reason not to employ him along with others. Further, it was pleaded that in October, 1993 the appellant went to another Sub Divisional Officer where some other work was going on and got himself employed there afresh and worked up to December, 1993 in Sub-division No.6 and again he left the job voluntarily during December, 1993 and therefore, termination order was not passed by respondent-employer. The number of working days of the workman as given in the written statement that he did not complete 240 days in any calendar year and as such, the provisions of Section 25-F clauses (a) & (b) of the Act were not requ