Termination of workmen was found unjustified due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to reinstatement and modification of back wages to 50%.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This common judgement shall dispose of aforementioned 09 writ petitions because common questions of law and similar facts are involved, in this bunch of petitions.

2. These petitions have been filed by petitioner - Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak, being the management, assailing separate nine awards, dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (here-after referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), in respective references (as depicted in the above table), which were instituted by respondent No. 2 - Workmen, directly before the Tribunal, in terms of amended provision of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby references have been answered in favour of the workmen. In all the 09 cases, the workmen have been held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, and all other consequential benefits.

3. For the reason that the facts of these petitions are identical, to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, the facts as pleaded in CWP No. 20416 of 2017, are being referred in subsequent paras of this judgement, by treating the same as lead case.

4. As per pleaded case of respondent No. 2/workman - Sahil Goyal (in CWP-20416-2017), he was appointed as a Lab Technician with the petitioner/management on 30.09.2009, on regular basis after publication of said post in newspaper, interview and other formalities. The pay scale of the workman was revised to Rs. 5200-20250+1900 AGP plus other allowances w.e.f. 16.01.2012. However, his services were terminated on 08.05.2015, on the premise that his appointment was not through proper channel. Claiming that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and termination of his services was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act, the workman approached the Tribunal, by filing his claim statement under Section 2A of the Act.

5. Petitioner/management contested the claim of the workman by pleading in the written statement that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition, because of setting up of the Educational Tribunal by the Government, for dealing with the cases of the employees of the educational institutions. It was further pleaded that appointment of the workman was illegal since the very inception, and being surplus, he was removed from service in just and fair manner. However, it was admitted that the workman was employed as Lab Technician in the Computer Science and Engineering Department on adhoc basis at a consolidated salary of Rs. 5,000/-, vide order dated 30.09.2009, and after revision of pay, his basic pay was fixed as Rs. 7,100/- w.e.f. 01.01.2012, vide order dated 16.01.2012. Denying the appointment of the workman on regular basis, it was stated that a cheque of Rs. 42,294/-, as three months' salary in lieu of notice, was sent to him by registered cover. Hence, the petitioner/management prayed for dismissal of the reference.

6. After filing of replication, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

"(1). Whether termination of services of workman is justified and if not, to what relief he is entitled? OPW.

(2). Relief."

7. After analyzing the pleadings and evidence adduced by respective parties, the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman by holding that the petitioner/management has violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act, while terminating the services of the workman. The observations made by the Tribunal in para Nos. 14 to 17 of its award dated 27.02.2017, in Reference No. 98 of 2015, which is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 20416 of 2017, says as under:-

"14. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 30.09.2009 and he was removed on 8.5.2015 an