Termination of daily wage workers under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not automatically entitle them to reinstatement; monetary compensation may be awarded instead.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Roshan Lal @ Billu Ram) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned award dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the reference of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner-workman has been answered against him and his claim has been dismissed.

A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with other consequential benefits.

2. Briefly, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his services. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ambala. In the claim petition, the petitioner stated that in January, 1993, he was employed as a daily wager under the respondent-Department i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Morni- Pinjore, Forest Division, Pinjore, Panchkula (hereinafter "respondent- Management") and he worked continuously in different nurseries under various guards. Petitioner claimed that his services were terminated on 08.07.2004 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the 1947 Act"); by adopting unfair labor practice, accordingly, petitioner prayed that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner-workman was contested by the respondent-Management by submitting its reply, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was never appointed as a daily wager, accordingly, there was no question of terminating his services. It was submitted that the work of forestry was seasonal and the muster rolls of the daily wagers are maintained in the Department regularly. It was stated that the petitioner had worked only 30 days in August, 2001 and had been paid accordingly and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made.

4. From the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the termination of services of the workman is liable to be set-aside being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and all the benefits including the continuity of service? OPW

2. Whether the workman has locus-standi to file the present claim statement?

3. Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? OPM

4. Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim statement? OPM

5. Relief."

5. The parties led their respective evidence in support of their case.

6. Upon considering the material/evidence available on the record, the Tribunal below vide the impugned award dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) held that the petitioner-workman had worked for more than 240 days with respondent-Management during the relevant period, however, the Tribunal below while relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Pilai v. Siemens Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 533, held that the petitioner cannot claim the right of reinstatement along with consequential benefits, accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal below has erred in law and fact in rejecting the claim of the petitioner despite holding that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period. It is submitted that learned Tribunal below has wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Gangadhar Pilai (Supra), which was not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, petitioner submits that the impugned award be quashed and necessary relief be granted to the petitioner in view of the finding that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period.

9. Per contra, learned State c