AJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, this petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated dated April 7, 1999 passed by Labour Court VI, Delhi, whereby the Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner claimed that he was working as driver with the respondent with effect from September 1, 1988 as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker. His services were terminated despite his unblemished record on July 1, 1999, without assigning any reason. He was also not being given the same salary and rights which were being given to the regular drivers, doing identical work with the respondent and it amounted to sheer exploitation. He claimed that he was entitled for regularisation and his termination was not in accordance with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act since he had worked for 240 days continuously. No domestic inquiry was held against him for any misconduct. He also claimed that he remained unemployed since July 1, 1999 (sic). He claimed reinstatement with full back wages.

(3.) The respondent/management in this case, it seems, had not prosecuted the matter and its defence was struck off. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner was merely a casual employee who had been employed as a muster roll worker. The petitioner failed to show any provision by which he, became entitled for regularisation. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657 : (1997) 4 SCC 391 : 1998-II-LLJ-15 Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner.