words per minute
23
durgesh_raj_vishwaka
00:00
Speed
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 appellant's services in terms of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant, however, did not 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 appellant's services in terms of Section 25 of the ID Act. The Labour Court answered the reference against the respondent and in appellant's favour. In other words, the Labour Court held that the respondent was not entitled to claim any benefit of Section 25 of the ID Act to claim reemployment in the appellant's services on the facts stated by the respondent in his statement of claim. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court. The Single Judge by order dated 26.11.2009 allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court. The High Court directed reemployment of the respondent on the post of Peon in the appellant's services. The appellant employer felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Division Bench. 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 employer the appellant. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard the learned counsel 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 restore the award of the Labour Court. In our considered opinion, there was no case made out by the respondent (workman) seeking reemployment in the appellant's services on the basis of Section 25.