The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entitle the employee to compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner through the present petition is challenging the validity of the award dated 14.05.2003 ("impugned award") passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court no. IX, Karkardooma, Delhi in I.D. No. 144/94 titled as "M/s Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi And Shri Ravinder Kumar".

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court held that the Petitioner/management has illegally refused the Respondent/workman duty on 02.01.1993. Learned Labour Court granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Learned Labour Court awarded a compensation of 40% of the last wages which would have been admissible to him under Rules from 02.01.1993 in lieu of his reinstatement.

3. The learned Labour Court passed the impugned Award on 13.10.2003 and it became enforceable on 12.11.2003. The present Writ Petition filed in the year 2005. By that time, the Respondent approached the recovery officer for the implementation of the impugned award under Section 33 (C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") and recovered the amount due to him for the period from 02.01.1993 to 30.04.2004.

4. The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition under the misconception that the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement with 40% back wages. Even the Respondent was under this misconception and hence he filed an Application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act for subsistence allowance. The said Application was dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2010 directing the Registrar General of this Court to initiate proceedings against the Respondent/Workman under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The fact remains is that the learned Labour Court has granted 40% back wages from 02.01.1993 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

5. Be that as it may, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the legality of the impugned Award.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

6. The Respondent/workman joined the service of the Petitioner/management as a Lorry Beldar on a daily/casual/muster roll basis w.e.f. 04.08.1998.

7. On 24.12.1992, an FIR bearing no. 250/92 was lodged against the Respondent u/s 406/498 A of the Indian Penal Code upon the complaint of his wife, Mrs. Geeta. On the basis of the same, the Respondent was arrested on 25.12.1992 and later was released from the judicial custody on 01.01.1993.

8. The Respondent/workman reported back to the duty on 02.01.1993 and submitted an application along with an affidavit, stating the reason of absenteeism from duty as being away from Delhi due to some personal reason. The Respondent failed to disclose to the Petitioner/Management about the factum of his involvement in FIR bearing No.250/92 or his arrest thereof.

9. It has been alleged by the Respondent/Workman that the Petitioner/Management did not allow him to join duty after 25.12.1992 and his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 25.12.1992 Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal to join back on duty, the Respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute.

10. The appropriate government on being satisfied regarding existence of an industrial dispute between the parties, referred the said dispute to the Learned Labour Court with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Ravinder Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

11. The Respondent/workman filed his Statement of claim wherein it was averred that his services were terminated illegally without furnishing any reason, which is violative of Section 25-F, G and H of the I.D. Act. It was further alleged that S.I. Shri Vijay Singh Nagar denied the Respondent/workman his job and instead demanded illegal gratification from Respondent/workman in return of taking him back into the service. It was also averred that the Petitioner/managem