SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the workman has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated January 22, 1999, vide which the reference was answered against him. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the respondent-management on November 1, 1991, and worked as labourer/chowkidar. His services were terminated on August 1, 1992. He further contended that he completed 240 days in the last calender year, prior to termination of his services. New appointment was made by the management after his termination and therefore, this is violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent-management has taken up a stand that the appointment of the petitioner was made on contingency basis and the payment was also made from the said fund and that there was no relationship of master and servant between them. Moreover, according to them, the respondent is not an "industry". They contended that the petitioner joined service on November 25, 1971, and not on November 1, 1991. It is further contended that there is no termination order passed on August 1, 1992, and that the petitioner never worked after June 30, 1992. It is further contended that the petitioner has only worked for 218 days.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In paragraph 6 of this writ petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that document mark "A" shows that he was on duty on July 15, 1992. Mark "A" is produced in this writ petition at annexure P4. It is a letter written by one Gurcharan Singh dated July 2, 1992. It has been forwarded to Prof. Jagsir Singh for report. Thereafter, it is signed by the officer-in-charge class IV on the same date and forwarded to the petitioner, Kapur Singh, Pal Singh and Nachhattar Singh for noting. According to the letter, ever since the closure of the gate of the colony, no chowkidar has been posted at the gate to open the gate and other purposes and the stray animals are found in the ground throughout the day which enter the residence of Gurcharan Singh and damage the plants. In the note below the letter, it has been mentioned that certain personnel will be posted on particular duties and petitioner is posted at gate permanently from 4.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and all the persons are directed to comply with their duties. This note, according to the petitioner, bears the endorsement to the petitioner and others and the endorsement of the petitioner is of July 15. Relying on this document, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated with effect from the earlier date, i.e., June 30, 1992, as contended by the respondents. Regarding this letter, in paragraph No. 6 of the petition, the para-wise reply is very vague. It is as under:

(3.) There is no denial to the averment that the petitioner had made an endorsement on the letter, as alleged. The Labour Court has dealt with this in paragraph No. 7 of the award. It has observed that when WW-1 Pal Singh was examined, he has not stated on oath regarding the period the petitioner had worked with the management and he has not clearly stated as to and by whom mark "A" has been signed and even if the contention of the petitioner is taken to be correct, the fact that it was got noted on July 15, 1992, goes against him as he has not been able to explain as to why he could not note the same prior to this date. We do not agree with the view taken by the Labour Court. If the petitioners service was already terminated on July 15, 1992, there was no need to get the instructions noted on that date.