Full Judgment
Rs.No.162 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.162 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: March 20, 2013 State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Prem Nath ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants.
A.N.JINDAL, J.
(Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.8.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal was accepted and the suit was decreed and the order of termination of services of the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred as “the plaintiff”.) from 17.9.1983 was held to be illegal and void.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.
While declining to grant stay to the State regarding execution of the decree, this Court had observed as under:- “This is an application for staying the execution of the decree granted by the appellate court.
The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order of termination which has been decreed.
The appellate Court declared the order of termination of services of the respondent as illegal and unauthorized.
He has been reinstated with full back wages.
The grant of stay would mean staying reinstatement as well as financial loss to the Rs.No.162 o”
2. plaintiff-respondent who happens to be a petty chowkidar.
The stay order is, therefore, declined.
However, the respondent would furnish security to the satisfaction of executing Court at the time of withdrawal of the amount of back wages if the same is deposited by the appellant.”
From the perusal of the order, it transpires that the plaintiff had been taken back in service after passing of the judgment dated 12.8.1989.
He has also received the back wages and he is continuous in service for the last 23 years after passing of the judgment.
It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff had completed 240 days in service.
The fiRs.appellate, while discussing the provisions of Chapter 5A, which contains Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”.).observed that while terminating the services of the plaintiff, these provisions were not complied with.
Further relying upon the judgment delivered in Prem Singh Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala 1989 (1) S.L.R.435, wherein the Court observed that the termination of the services of the workman, who has completed 240 days without following the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, is illegal and he would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
In the instant case also, the aforesaid provisions were not complied with at the time of his termination, therefore, the order of his termination is illegal.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
Dismissed.
March 20, 2013 (A.N.JINDAL) prem JUDGE