The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.172 of 2020
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present appeal is arising out of order dated 11.12.2018,
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26593 of 2003.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent
No.2/workman was engaged on 01.07.1996 as a lift operator. He was disengaged on 05.05.1999. He raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), before the Industrial Tribunal-I, for setting aside the earlier order of termination and for reinstatement into service with full backwages. Finally, an award was passed on 30.06.2003 directing reinstatement of workman into service and setting aside the oral termination dated 05.05.1999. A further direction was also issued to regularise the services of the workman.
3. The award, which is on record makes it very clear that evidence was adduced by the employer as well as by the workman and finding of fact has been arrived at that the workman was terminated from service without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The appellant/employer, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, preferred a writ petition stating that that in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi 2 and others and State of Bihar and others1, the Labour Court could not have directed regularisation of the workman. Not only this, reliance was also placed on the Judgment delivered in W.A.No.164 of 2004. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the Writ Petition, the operative portion of which reads as under:
"Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the Award in favour of the 2nd respondent-workman. Since the 2nd respondent-workman has specifically pleaded that his juniors were continued in service and their services were also regularized, in order to do complete justice, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent-workman into service by setting aside the oral termination dated 5.5.1999. The Tribunal has no power to direct the petitioner to regularize the services of the 2nd respondent-workman and only to that limited extent, the Tribunal erred in giving such a direction. In respect of other aspects, such as setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement of the workman into service are all well within its power. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of directing the petitioner to regularize the services of the 2nd respondent-workman is set aside and rest of the Award dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.79 of 2001 is upheld. No costs."
4. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2/workman was removed from service without following the 1 1997 (76) 236 3 provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act. The finding of fact is based upon the statement of witnesses and the record produced by the employer and therefore, as there was violation of Section 25F of the Act, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition to the extent the award directed reinstatement into service. Learned Single Judge further set aside the order directing regularization of respondent No.2/workman into service. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.
_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ ____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J Date: 08.11.2021 lur