The main legal point established in the judgment is that noncompliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act renders the termination of an employee's services illegal. The court also emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion in determining the appropriate relief, considering factors such as the nature of employment, length of service, and delay in raising the industrial dispute.

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby termination of the services of the petitioner-workman has been held to be illegal and he has been awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,500/- while declining the relief of reinstatement. Mr. K.L. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner workman would submit that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court as regards 240 days of service having been completed in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination i.e. 1.1.1997 It has been submitted that even the plea of the Management that the workman had abandoned the job w.e.f. 1.1.1997 has not been accepted and has been termed as an afterthought and since neither retrenchment compensation was paid nor any notice pay was given, Labour Court had held that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel would argue that compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was mandatory and noncompliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee a nullity and the necessary consequence would be that the petitioner-workman was entitled to continue in employment as if his services had not been terminated. It is contended that the Labour Court has gravely erred in denying the relief of reinstatement. In support of such contention, judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, and Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat, Haryana, 2010 (3) SCT 319 have been placed reliance upon. It has also been argued that the Labour Court in the impugned award has considered the petitioner workman to have rendered service as Beldar/Majdoor on daily wage basis for the period 12.1.1995 to 31.12.1996, whereas the petitioner-workman had continued in service till 26.6.2000. Mr. Arora would submit that w.e.f. 1.1.1997, the services of the petitioner workman had been placed under a contractor without his knowledge and such service till 26.6.2000 would be construed to be under the respondent-Department itself and his services were terminated on 27.6.2000 by the Junior Engineer concerned. Towards such assertion, learned counsel would submit that the Management had admitted the same in the reply submitted to the statement of claim.

2. Another limb of the argument raised is that the Labour Court has erroneously denied relief of re-instatement being weighed by the fact that the demand notice had been served after delay of about 3-1/2 years by taking the date of termination as 1.1.1997 and ignoring the admission on behalf of the Management that services of the petitioner-workman were terminated on 27.6.2000 and within a month's time thereafter, the demand notice dated 25.7.2000 had been served.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the award dated 23.11.2009 has been passed on due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and would not call for any interference by the writ Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned State counsel would contend that the petitioner-workman had been engaged only on daily wage basis and had worked under the respondent-Department from 12.1.1995 to 31.12.1996, and that too, with breaks and as such, even if there be violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, he would not be entitled to the relief of re-instatement.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

5. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has referred to the testimony of witness of the Management i.e. MW 1 who admitted that in the reply filed by the Department before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, copy at Exhibit W2, the workman had worked for 266 days from April 1996 to December 1996. As s