Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant and the respondent filed their claim statement and the objection respectively before the Labour Court, Rohtak, and led evidence in support of their respective cases.
Thereafter, the Labour Court passed the Award dated 18.07.2006 holding that the appellant had admittedly companypleted 267 days from 01.06.1988 to 30.04.1989 and his services were terminated without any numberice or numberice pay and without payment of retrenchment companypensation and the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be re instated in his previous post with companytinuity of service and 50 back wages from the date of demand numberice, i.e. 30.12.1997.
The respondent did number respond to the demand made by the appellant and by order dated 23.07.1999, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court.
The respondent challenged the Award of the Labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition registered as C.W.P. No.5257 of 2007 and by order dated 09.12.2008, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Award dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead to pay companypensation of Rs.50,000/ to the appellant within a period of four months.
He served a numberice of demand dated 30.12.1997 on the respondent companytending that his services were terminated orally without companyplying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act and that he may be re instated in service with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and he may be regularized according to Government policy.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
The appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent from 01.06.1988.
His services were dispensed with in December, 1993.
