Indu Malhotra JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 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.
3. Few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal.
4. The Appellant is the Co-operative Marketing Society. The Respondent was working with the Appellant as a Peon from 01.07.1973. The Appellant terminated the services of the Respondent on 01.07.1985. The Respondent, therefore, got the reference made through the State to the Labour Court to decide the legality and correctness of his termination order.
5. By award dated 03.02.1988, the Labour Court held the Respondent's termination as bad in law and accordingly awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 12,500/- to the Respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service.
6. The Appellant and Respondent both were aggrieved by the award and filed writ petitions before the High Court to challenge the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court. The High Court, however, dismissed both the writ petitions. The Respondent then accepted the compensation, which was awarded by the Labour Court.
7. 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 re-employment in the Appellant's services in terms of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act"). The Appellant, however, did not accept the prayer made by the Respondent.
8. 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 re-employment in the Appellant's services in terms of Section 25(H) of the ID Act.
9. 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(H) of the ID Act to claim re-employment in the Appellant's services on the facts stated by the Respondent in his statement of claim.
10. 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 re-employment 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.
11. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appe........