http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3443 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of Haryana

RESPONDENT: Dilbagh Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2006

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

                               O R D E R

               This appeal is directed against the order passed by the  Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.04.2005 whereby the  Division Bench has confirmed the award given by the Labour Court.  

               The respondent was serving as a Beldar in PWD ( B & R)  and his services were terminated on 25.12.1999. A dispute under the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the  ’Act’) was raised and the matter was referred to Labour Court and  the Labour Court after hearing both the parties found that there is a  breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.  It was held that person  junior to the respondent is still working whereas the services of the  respondent had been terminated. Therefore, the Labour Court  allowed the claim of the respondent and granted reinstatement with  continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of demand  notice i.e. from 1.2.2000.  Aggrieved against that order a writ petition  was filed before the High Court and  the High Court affirmed the  order of the Labour Court. Hence, the present appeal.  

               We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned  counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate that no person  junior to the respondent had been retained in the Department. It is a  clear finding of the Tribunal that a person like Krishan s/o Dharam  Singh who is junior to the respondent is still working with the  Management whereas the services of the respondent had been  terminated. It is also alleged that  another person named Mahabir  who is also junior to the respondent is still working with the  Management.  Therefore, the Tribunal has found violation of Sections  25-G & 25-H of the Act. This finding of fact has not been  controverted by the management and there is no reason to take a  different view from the view taken by the Tribunal which was  affirmed by the High Court. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal  and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondent shall be  reinstated but looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of  this case, he will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant  shall issue order of appointment of the respondent within one month  from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to  costs.