The main legal point established is that termination of services must comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and reinstatement may not be granted in cases of strained relationships between the parties.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated September 2, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour court on a reference dated March 29, 2000 made to the said Court to adjudicate upon the following issue:

"whether the services of Sh. Pawan Sharma have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 2 ) UNDER the impugned award, the learned presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the petitioner herein has retrenched the respondent workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') illegally, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the act') and thus termination of the services of the workman on August 27, 1999 is ab initio illegal and unjustified. However, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that it is not a fit case for reinstatement of the workman. In lieu thereof, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment.

( 3 ) THE brief facts relevant for the purposes of appreciating the impugned award are that the petitioner is the owner of a bus which was plying on route No. 33 under the kilometer scheme of the Delhi Transport Corporation. The workman was in the employment of the petitioner with effect from November 12, 1998 on wages of Rs. 4,500/- per month, besides Rs. 300/- as daily expenses. The management neither issued any appointment letter to the workman nor maintained any attendance register. It was claimed by the workman that he was not paid wages for the period from november 12, 1998 to August 27, 1999 besides overtime for that period, despite his repeated verbal requests. The services of the workman were terminated from August 27, 1999 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As a result, the workman served a demand notice (Exhibit WW1/1) dated september 11, 1999 on the management for amicable settlement of the matter. Although the said demand notice was received by the management (vide postal receipt, Exhibit ww 1/2 to WW 1/3) and the management admitted receipt thereof, the said demand notice was not replied to. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed and pursuant thereto, the workman raised an industrial dispute whereunder, he sought his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

( 4 ) THE claim of the workman was contested by the management by filing a written statement. In the said written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that there was no relationship of an employer and an employee between the parties as the workman was not a permanent employee of the petitioner. The claim of the management was that the services of the workman were taken only sometimes when the permanent driver was on leave and for the said services rendered by him, he was duly paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day and thus nothing was due and payable to the workman. It was alleged that on September 5, 1999, the workman fled away with the vehicle, namely, bus of the petitioner which was recovered from him and the matter was reported to the police. Subsequently, he returned the vehicle to the petitioner who did not initiate any criminal action against the workman. It was also averred that the workman was gainfully employed and was not entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.

( 5 ) ISSUE was framed in the matter on february 17, 2004 as per the terms of reference.

( 6 ) THE workman examined himself as ww1 and filed an affidavit by way of evidence. He also proved the documents placed by him on record. The management examined Smt. Sushila sharma as MW1 and her husband Mr. Ashok sharma as MW2. Both the witnesses filed their res