Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By way of this common order, the fate of the aforesaid writ petitions shall be decided as both the petitions are arising out of same award dated 28.02.2002.

CWP-19981 of 2002 has been filed by the Management challenging the award dated 28.02.2002 passed in reference No. 13/1/4882/HII(4)/91/5945,whereby the order of reinstatement with continuity in service has been ordered by learned Labour Court.

Another CWP-8585-2004 has been filed by Workman-Mohan Singh against the award dated 28.02.2002, whereby workman was reinstated but without back wages.

2. For the sake of brevity, facts are being extracted from CWP-8585-2004.

Workman-Mohan Singh, was appointed as 'Mason' and serving with the respondent-P.W.D., (B& R) Branch, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh with effect from 15.02.1995 on daily wage basis. His place of working was P.W.D, B & R Branch, Division No.2, Kothi No.2444, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh. In the month of October, 1995, name of the workman was changed in muster roll from Mohan Singh s/o Shri. Bachan Singh to Shri. Sardara Singh S/o Shri. Bakshish Singh.

3. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that the workman was appointed on 15.02.1995 and was removed from service on 01.12.1995. It was further pleaded that the services of the workman were terminated without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, thus, there is a complete violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947'). It was further pleaded that employees junior to the petitioner were retained and he was terminated from services without any reason, thus, there is violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947.

4. In the written statement filed by the Management on factual aspect it was pleaded that the workman was engaged w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and not from 15.02.1995, on daily wage basis. The workman was appointed for a short period against muster roll on the wage of Rs. 73 per day by Junior Engineer, namely, Shri. Kirpal Singh, who was Incharge of the work on 01.02.1995. It was also pleaded that the workman was engaged or re-engaged from time to time and it is the workman, who absented himself from duty for the complete month of July, 1995 and ultimately stopped working w.e.f 17.10.1995. Thus, the Management pleaded that it is a clear case of abandonment of service and not of termination, as claimed by the workman.

5. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, learned Labour Court concluded that the workman has completed 240 working days in the office of the Management.

For the sake of convenience, relevant findings recorded by learned Labour Court in paragraph Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are reproduced herebelow:

"20. On the other hand learned representative for the management has argued that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis on 1st February, 1995 worked up to 30th June, 1995 then he did not report for duty through out the month of July, 1995. He was rearranged on 1st August, 1995 and he worked up to 16th October, 1995 and thereafter he has abandoned the job. It is argued that the workman has not completed 240 days. So, he is not entitled to the protection of the provisions of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also argued that the present is a case of abandonment of services and the authorities with regard to the retaining of junior persons or engaging fresh persons are not of any help to the workman it is further argued that the workman has himself examined AW-2 Baljit Singh who has specifically stated that he along with the workman had been working privately after and before their engagement with the management. It is argued that in view of this fact, the workman is not entitled to the back wages even if this Tribunal passes an order for reinstatement of the workman because from evidence led by the workman itself it is established that he had been gainfully employed.

21. I have considered the above submissions made on behalf