JAI PAL Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh, the learned counsel assisted by Sri D.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manisha Ambwani, the learned counsel holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner workman whose reference was answered in negative by the labour court, has filed the present writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner contended that he was engaged as a peon on daily rate basis on 12th January, 1995 and worked continuously without any break in service till 1st November, 1996, and that his services were arbitrarily terminated on 2nd November, 1996. The petitioner contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and that his services were arbitrarily terminated without complying with the provisions of 6- N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The respondents, in the written statement, denied the stand of the petitioner and contended that he was never an employee of the Bank and that for exigency of services, the workman was engaged on a daily rate basis for a period of one week in April 1995, for which he was paid the wages through a voucher.