Suresh Kait, J.@mdashThe petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned award dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No.183/95.
2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the terms of reference vide notification No.F-24 (1022)/95/Lab- 19558-63 dated 07.07.95 are as under:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Dushyant Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3. Accordingly, the learned Presiding Officer framed the issues as under:-
"(i) Whether the dispute has been espoused? If not, to what effect?
(ii) Whether the demand notice was served? If not, to what effect? (iii) Whether the claimant was employee of the management?
(iv) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
(v) Relief."
4. The issue Nos.1 to 3 as noted above have been decided in favour of the petitioner whereas issue No.4 is decided against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management, however, not decided the same.
6. On perusal of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal while taking the shelter of the cases of
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (Haryana) decided on 09.04.2010 by the Apex Court wherein held as under:-
"19. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in service or paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have unduly influenced the High Court''s approach in dealing with the appellant''s challenge to the award of the Labour Court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section 25F of the Act and employer''s obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that section."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Krishna Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) decided on 12.03.2010 by the Apex Court wherein held as under:-
"The decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra) cited by the counsel for the respondent relates to regularization in public employment and has no relevance to an Award for re-instatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour Court u/s 11A of the Act without any direction for regularization of his services."
9. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal had to see from the evidence whether the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated whereas the learned Tribunal has dealt the case on a different proportion of law.
10. Keeping in view the issues before the Labour Court and the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that case of Uma Devi (supra) is applicable on employees under the public sector employment and not to the private establishment which has to be dealt under the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. Accordingly, award dated 08.08.2008 is hereby set aside.
12. The matter is remanded to the concerned Industrial Tribunal to decide afresh by giving opportunities to both parties.
13. Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Industrial Tribunal on 24th of September, 2014 for direction.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal.
15. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
