Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3443 of 2006
PETITIONER:
State of Haryana
RESPONDENT:
Dilbagh Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2006
BENCH:
A.K.MATHUR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.04.2005 whereby the
Division Bench has confirmed the award given by the Labour Court.
The respondent was serving as a Beldar in PWD ( B & R)
and his services were terminated on 25.12.1999. A dispute under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the
’Act’) was raised and the matter was referred to Labour Court and
the Labour Court after hearing both the parties found that there is a
breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. It was held that person
junior to the respondent is still working whereas the services of the
respondent had been terminated. Therefore, the Labour Court
allowed the claim of the respondent and granted reinstatement with
continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of demand
notice i.e. from 1.2.2000. Aggrieved against that order a writ petition
was filed before the High Court and the High Court affirmed the
order of the Labour Court. Hence, the present appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned
counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate that no person
junior to the respondent had been retained in the Department. It is a
clear finding of the Tribunal that a person like Krishan s/o Dharam
Singh who is junior to the respondent is still working with the
Management whereas the services of the respondent had been
terminated. It is also alleged that another person named Mahabir
who is also junior to the respondent is still working with the
Management. Therefore, the Tribunal has found violation of Sections
25-G & 25-H of the Act. This finding of fact has not been
controverted by the management and there is no reason to take a
different view from the view taken by the Tribunal which was
affirmed by the High Court. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal
and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondent shall be
reinstated but looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, he will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant
shall issue order of appointment of the respondent within one month
from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to
costs.