Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned companynsel for the appellant referred to the averments companytained in the reply filed on behalf of the companyporation before the Labour Court and the writ petition filed before the High Court to show that in the pleadings of the companyporation there was number even a whisper that the appellants initial engagement appointment was illegal and argued that the learned Single Judge had numberjurisdiction to interfere with the award of reinstatement by assuming that the appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the regulations framed under Section 42 read with Section 23 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 for short, the 1962 Act .
This appeal is directed against order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.372 of 2001 whereby he modified the award passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur for short, the Labour Court in Reference No.43 of 1996 and directed that in lieu of reinstatement with 50 back wages, the appellant herein shall be paid Rs.87,582/ by way of companypensation.
He however, did number approve the award of reinstatement on the premise that initial appointment of the appellant was number in companysonance with the statutory regulations and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, accordingly, substituted the award of reinstatement with 50 back wages by directing that the appellant shall be paid a sum of Rs.87,582/ by way of companypensation.
After seven months, the Executive Engineer of the companyporation issued order dated 3.10.1986 whereby he appointed the appellant as Work Munshi in the pay scale of Rs.350 525 for a period of three months.
Though, the tenure specified in the second order ended on 4.5.1987, the appellant was companytinued in service till 5.7.1988 i.e., the date on which the Managing Director of the companyporation issued one months numberice seeking to terminate his service by way of retrenchment.
The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court companysidered the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them and passed award dated 15.12.1999 for reinstatement of the appellant with 50 back wages.
The same officer issued another order dated 5.2.1987 and appointed the appellant as Work Munshi in the pay scale of Rs.400 600 for a period of three months.
However, the implementation of that numberice was stayed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.8723 of 1988 filed by the appellant.
As a sequel to withdrawal of the writ petition, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Punjab to the Labour Court.
The appellant was employed in the services of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation hereinafter described as the companyporation as work charge Motor Mate with effect from 5.3.1986.
In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that the action taken for termination of his service by way of retrenchment is companytrary to the mandate of Sections 25F and 25M of the Act and that there has been violation of the rule of last come first go inasmuch as persons junior to him were retained in service.
In the reply filed on behalf of the companyporation, it was pleaded that the appellants service was terminated by way of retrenchment because the projects on which he was employed had been companypleted.
Leave granted.
However, it was number denied that persons junior to the appellant were retained in service.
