Termination of services without notice or compensation is illegal under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and reinstatement must be granted from the same date as similarly situated employees.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the execution petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of being fully satisfied.

2. The brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Switch Board Attendant w.e.f. 12.04.1983 on daily wage basis and his services were terminated in the month of January, 1987. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), wherein the following dispute was referred for adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of MES in terminating the services of Sh. Mohan Singh, s/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?"

3. It was pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the services of the petitioner/workman has been terminated without giving him any compensation or serving 01 months' notice and the same is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also pleaded that the management terminated the services of about total of 70 daily wage employees, including the present petitioner/workman w.e.f. January, 1987. Award dated 05.01.2015 was passed by the learned Tribunal, and the reference was answered in favour of the present petitioner and the following findings were recorded:-

"The workman has specifically pleaded in para 1 of the statement of claim that he was engaged on 12.4.1983 on daily wage basis and his services were terminated w.e.f. January, 1987. The respondent management did not controvert this fact in para 1 of the written statement and rather admitted the same and it is only pleaded in para 4 on merits that he did not complete 240 days in any calendar year. Since the management itself admit that the workman worked from 12.4.1983 to January, 1987, it is for the management to prove by leading cogent evidence that the workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year prior to the termination of his Services. Narinder Singh has deposed about the days the workman worked during the year 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but he did not utter a single word about the days workman worked in the year 1986 and therefore it cannot be said that the workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year preceding the termination of his services in January 1987. Thus it is to be held that he completed 240 days of continuous service, prior to the termination of his services. No retrenchment compensation or notice was issued to him as specified under Section 25F of the Act, and as such, his termination is held to be illegal.

It is also not denied that services of the 70 employees including the workman were terminated in January, 1987. All of them filed OAs before the Central Administrative Tribunal which were dismissed by common order dated 19.8.1992. The workmen, but not the present workman, preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the management to consider the case in accordance with law laid down in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh vide order dated 2.9.1996. In pursuance of the said order, the management reinstated the other employees. Since the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside, it was for the management to consider the case of the present workman also. But no step was taken by the management in this direction. It was contended that there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute which is sufficient to hold that claimant cannot claim any relief in the present reference. Suffice it to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order in 1996 and thereafter the co-workers, who were admittedly sim