Termination of services without following due process under the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, and reinstatement with seniority is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 15.03.2016, passed by learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered as under:-

“As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues No. 1 to 3, the claim of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby partly allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity. However the petitioner is not entitled to back wages and as such the reference is ordered to be answered in favour of the petitionerand against the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondent/workman, raised an industrial dispute that he was engaged as a Chowkidar by the petitioner- Corporation for watch and ward at M/s S.L. Industries, Village Kandisar on 28.02.2006 and his services were terminated on 02.11.2006, without following the procedure provided in the Industrial Disputes Act despite the fact that he had put in 287 days without any break. On the said industrial dispute raised by the respondent, following Reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the learned Labour Court:-

"Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ami Chand Thakur, daily wage Chowkidar by The Managing Director HP Financial Corporation, Shimla w.e.f. 21.11.2006 without serving notice and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is legal and justified? If not, to what back-wages, service benefits and relief the above named daily wage Chowkidar is entitled to?"

3. After the reference was made, the respondent herein put forth his claim petition, in terms whereof, he took the stand that he was engaged as a Chowkidar on 28.02.2006 and he worked without any break till 02.11.2006. Despite the fact that he had put in 287 days as on 02.11.2006, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. On the other hand, defence of the employer was that the claimant was engaged as a Chowkidar, on contract basis, for watch and ward of assets of an industrial unit taken over under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations, Act. In terms of the contract, the claimant had to perform his duties for a limited period and his engagement was co-terminus with the sale of the industrial unit. As the unit was sold, being a sick unit, the same also led to the termination of the contract entered into between the claimant and the Corporation.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed by the learned Labour Court:-

1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 21.11.2006, is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief, the petitioner is entitled to?

3. Whether there were no industrial activities in the closed units at the time of take-over of the assets?

4. Relief.

6. On the strength of the evidence, which was led by the parties, the Issues so framed were decided as under:-

7. The Reference was answered by learned Labour Court in terms already quoted by me hereinabove.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this writ petition.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the award is per se bad as learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that the State Finance Corporation is not an industry as de