LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-124

SURENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On November 28, 2016
Surendra Kumar Shrivas Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 27/5/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Jagdalpur, in Case No. 03/2012/ I.D.Act/Reference.

(2.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that the Petitioner, the worker, had raised an industrial dispute with the State of Chhattisgarh which the Labour Commissioner, Raipur had referred to the Labour Court, Jagdalpur, on the following term :

(3.) The petitioner-worker entered appearance before the Court below and submitted his Statement of Claim. The Respondent-State also had filed their Written Statement. In the Statement of Claim, the petitioner- worker had categorically stated that he was engaged as a daily wage worker on 1/3/2008 and he continued to work as a daily wage worker up till 2/4/2012 when abruptly the service of the Petitioner was discontinued. It was also stated by the petitioner-worker that he was made to work as a helper/cleaner/chowkidar during the said period of his engagement. According to the Petitioner, since he had put in more 240 days in a calendar year and has served for about four years, his service could not have been discontinued by the Respondent-State without complying with the statutory requirements as is required under Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' in short). According to him, the State Government in between illegally without issuing any advertisement or without complying with the procedure of law had also appointed a large number of candidates against the vacant posts of Driver/Cleaner/Helper. The Petitioner had categorically levelled allegations of not holding proper recruitment for filling up of the said vacant posts nor was any of the daily wager worker who were already working with the department informed about the recruitment or given any opportunity for participating in the said recruitment process. He further alleged that since April, 2012 though he had made efforts for getting employment elsewhere but could not get the same and he was unemployed.