The appellant is the Cooperative Marketing Society.
The respondent then accepted the companypensation, which was awarded by the Labour Court.
317 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in CWP No.15066 of 2006 by which the respondent herein was ordered to be reinstated into service with back wages.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the orders of the High Court Single Judge and the Division Bench restore the award of the Labour Court.
The appellant employer felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Division Bench.
In other words, the Labour Court held that the respondent was number entitled to claim any benefit of Section 25 H of the ID Act to claim reemployment in the appellants services on the facts stated by the respondent in his statement of claim.
The appellant and respondent both were aggrieved by the award and filed writ petitions before the High Court to challenge the legality and companyrectness of the award passed by the Labour Court.
The Single Judge by order dated 26.11.2009 allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court.
The Labour Court answered the reference against the respondent and in appellants favour.
The High Court directed reemployment of the respondent on the post of Peon in the appellants services.
In the year 1993, the respondent filed a representation to the appellant praying therein that since the appellant has recently regularized the services of two peons on 01.01.1992 vide their resolution dated 02.08.1993, therefore, he has become entitled to claim reemployment in the appellants services in terms of Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the ID Act .
The appellant, however, did number accept the prayer made by the respondent.
This led to making of an industrial reference to the Labour Court by the State at the instance of the respondent for deciding the question as to whether the respondent is entitled to claim reemployment in the appellants services in terms of Section 25 H of the ID Act.
By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the employerthe appellant.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Shish Pal Laler, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The respondent felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court.
By award dated 03.02.1988, the Labour Court held the respondents termination as bad in law and accordingly awarded lump sum companypensation of Rs.12,500/ to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service.
This appeal is directed against the final Signature Not Verified judgment and order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.01.02 High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in 164720 IST Reason P.A. No.
The appellant terminated the services of the respondent on 01.07.1985.
The respondent was working with the appellant as a Peon from 01.07.1973.
The respondent, therefore, got the reference made through the State to the Labour Court to decide the legality and companyrectness of his termination order.
Few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal.
