2007 (4) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was referred by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, for its determination. It was registered as Reference No.59 of 1999. By an award dated 28.2.2003, the Industrial Court on the premise that the services rendered by the respondent in both the Sub-Divisions should be counted for the purpose of Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 14.9.1995. A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellant herein was dismissed. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal by special leave. The short question which arises for consideration by us in this appeal is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ablishment even may not know that the workman had worked in another establishment. In absence of such a knowledge, the authority retrenching the workman concerned would not be able to comply with the statutory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act. Thus, once two establishments are held to be separate and distinct having different cadre strength of the workmen, if any, we are of the opinion that the period during which the workman was working in one establishment would not enure to his benefit when he was recruited separately in another establishment, particularly when he was not transferred from one Sub-Division to the other. In this case he was appointed merely on daily wages. In Union of India and Others v. Jummasha Diwan [(2....