Kuldeep Singh vs Presiding Officer on 23 March, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                            C.M. No. 5100 of 2009 and
                                            C.W.P. No. 21111 of 2008.
                                         Date of Decision : March 23, 2009.


Kuldeep Singh.                                            ...... Petitioner.

                                   Versus.

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar,
and another.                                            ..... Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-    Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate,
             for the respondent No. 2.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

C.M. No. 5100 of 2009.

This application is for placing on record the written statement on

behalf of respondent No.2.

Application is allowed.

Written statement is taken on record.

C.W.P. No. 21111 of 2008.

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated

10.01.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered against the

petitioner-workman.

Counsel for the parties agree that there is no finding recorded by

the Labour Court with regard to the days the petitioner-workman has put in
C.W.P. No. 21111 of 2008. -2-

service with the respondent-respondent in the 12 preceding months from the

date of his termination.

Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the findings

were required to be recorded by the Labour Court as it is the first court

where evidence is led by the parties on the basis of pleadings and on the

basis of issues framed therein. On such findings, the claims of the parties

are to be determined which would further be available for the Court where

the findings so recorded by the Labour Court with regard to violation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which would

primarily depend upon period of work which the workman has put in with

the management. Even if it does not entitle him to reinstatement in service

but would be entitling him to compensation, the award as passed by the

Labour Court, cannot sustained. He relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others

Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and Division Bench judgment of

this High Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and

another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, in this regard.

There can be no dispute with regard to assertion made by

counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition. The Labour Court was

required to give a finding on the question with regard to non compliance of

the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which would be

depending upon the period of work which the workman has put in with the

management in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination.

That having not been done, the rights of the parties cannot be determined

and the courts wherein the awards are under challenge, would be

handicapped as in the present case before this Court.
C.W.P. No. 21111 of 2008. -3-

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the

impugned award dated 10.01.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, is hereby set aside. The case is

remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision in the light of the above

observations.

The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on

27.04.2009.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
March 23, 2009.

sjks.