2018 (11) TMI 1963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs.10,000/- although in other identical cases, other labourers have been reinstated with 70% back wages. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before the Conciliation Officer against his removal and a reference was subsequently made to the Labour Court as an industrial dispute that whether the petitioner's termination of service by the respondents is valid and correct; and, if not, the relief to which he is entitled to. The counsel has submitted that the petitioner has worked continuously as daily wager with the Forest Department from 1995 till 1999 and in each year he has worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break. However, in the year 1999 all the daily wagers includ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abour Court in passing the impugned order. So far as the cases of the other employees as also the order passed in Writ Petition No.4802/2006 are concerned, the same are distinguishable as the impugned order has been passed by the Presiding Officer relying upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Arjunlal Rajak reported in 2006 (109) FLR 159 (SC) and Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & another, reported in 2008 (116) FLR 379 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has laid down that in those cases in which the employee has assailed his termination of service, the Labour Court instead of reinstatement can also grant compensation in lieu thereof and for that it is to be seen that wheth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....999, he has also not been served with any notice for the termination of his services and has also not been granted any retrenchment allowance and it is further held that the termination of service of the petitioner by the respondents is illegal and uncalled for although while passing the aforesaid order the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has referred to various judgments of the Apex Court as aforesaid to arrive at his own conclusions regarding petitioner's entitlement.. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the Labour Court in identical cases of Ghanshyam Sahu and Saleem reveals that their reference was made to the Labour Court in the year 2002 only and the final award was made in the year 2005 whereas the petitioner's case was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered on 11.10.2017 in Writ Appeal No.11/2017 in the case of Mohanlal Kumhar (supra) wherein the question was whether in case of termination of a daily-wager found in breach of the provisions engrafted in Section 25-F of the Act, the employee is entitled for reinstatement with or without back wages or only compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In the said case also the respondents did not appear and remained ex parte and on the basis of uncontroverted evidence the Labour Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of employees without any back wages. In the said case after discussing various judgments of the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court finally held as unde....