By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 3.5.2004 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 2 of 1996 whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of service and 25% backwages. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as Mali on daily wage basis on ad hoc basis. The respondent has not worked continuously for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months. He did not report for the work and he himself abandoned the work. As such there was no industrial dispute. The services of the respondent were not terminated by the petitioner. The petitioner asked the respondent to report for work but he failed to report.
3. The respondent raised industrial dispute by way of Reference (LCJ) No. 2 of 1996 before the Labour Court claiming reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. He filed statement of claim stating that his services were illegally terminated without issuing any notice.
4. The petitioner resisted the statement of claim of the respondent and denied all the allegations and contentions raised in the statement of claim. It is stated that the services of the respondent were not terminated and in spite of several requests he did not report for work. The petitioner stated that the respondent has not worked for 240 days and therefore there was no breach of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Reference is required to be rejected.
5. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed the award as aforesaid. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. It is stated that pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent has already been reinstated in service and the only question which is left for consideration is continuity of service and backwages. While considering the case, prima facie, the Tribunal has found that there is breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act since no notice was issued or retrenchment compensation was not paid to the respondent. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service is just and proper. However, the Labour Court has not assigned any reason for granting backwages and hence the order granting 25% backwages is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Accordingly, the order granting reinstatement with continuity of service is just and proper. The order granting 25% back wages is quashed and set aside. The order of the Labour Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)