AJAY KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 10.6.1998, copy Annexure P5, passed by respondent No. 1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide which he declined the reference made to it by the State of Punjab (Director, Information and Public Relations Department), Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner on daily wage basis vide letter of appointment dated 2.5.1994 for a period of three months. The petitioner was a matriculate when he was appointed as a Cleaner. A copy of the letter of appointment has been placed on record as Annexure P1 and the same was placed with reference as Ex.W/1. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time and was given extension vide letters dated 10.8.1994, 29.10.1994, 17.11.1994, 19.1.1995, 17.4.1995 and 30.7.1995. The last extension given to the petitioner was vide letter Annexure P2 for a period of three months w.e.f. 21.7.1995. A copy of this letter of extension was placed before the Labour Court as Ex.W/7. The petitioner, as per the averments made in the writ petition, worked continuously during the period upto 20.10.1995 when his services were terminated. The petitioner served a demand notice and the conciliation proceedings were held which, however, could not settle the dispute and ultimately a reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, framed the following issues:

(3.) The copy of the demand notice has been filed as Annexure P3. Respondent No. 2-department filed reply, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P4. The Labour Court held that the services of the workman stood automatically dispensed with after the period of extension of service expired. It was also held that though the workman had completed service of 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months but he was not given any further extension and the services of the petitioner stood automatically dispensed with and consequently there was no termination of the services by the management much less mala fide. Feeling aggrieved against the award, the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition.