STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. GANESH RAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award passed by the labour Court dated 05.05.2018 passed in case No. 16/ I.D. Act /2015/Reference.

(2.) The facts of the case is that respondent was engaged by the petitioner as a daily wage employee way back in the year 1986. It is said that he had worked as a daily wage employee from 1986 to 1997 when his services were abruptly discontinued. The discontinuance of the respondent was challenged by way of a dispute raised under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The matter stood referred to the labour Court, Korba where the case was registered as case No. 16/ I.D. Act /2015/Reference. The workers as well as management i.e the petitioner entered appearance before labour Court and submitted their respective claim and written statement. The contention of the worker before the labour Court was that the worker was discontinued without compliance of the mandatory provisions as is required under the chapter 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act . The contention of the worker was that before discontinuance no notice was issued neither was he issued salary in lieu of the notice nor was he paid retrenchment compensation while his services was being discontinued.

(3.) On the contrary, the petitioner-State Government had filed their objection raising the grounds that the disputed had been raised at a belated stage and therefore the reference itself should had been rejected on the ground of delay. Moreover, it was the contention of the State Government that substantive engagement of the respondent was that of a daily wage worker who was engaged as and when availability of work was there and on completion of a day's work his services automatically stood discontinued. Therefore worker would not be entitled for any notice or compensation for discontinuance and thus discontinuance cannot be said to be bad.