JAGTAR SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the Award dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) is under challenge whereby the petitioner-workman has been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondent-management in view of the fact that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the Labour Court has returned a specific finding in the light of the admission made by MW-1, namely, P.L.Sayal, Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service with the respondent-management in the last calendar year immediately before the termination of his services and further that the petitioner workman had continuously worked with the respondent-management from 29.11.1996 to 28.7.1999 as part-time Water Carrier and further, the termination of services of the workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner-workman in service. She contends that the respondent management had not taken a specific stand before the Labour Court that the admission of the petitioner-workman was de hors the statutory rules governing his service and therefore, the Labour Court has wrongly proceeded to hold that the admission of the petitioner-workman being not in consonance with the statutory rules and his appointment being on adhoc/ temporary basis, he would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. In support of her contention, she relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 2 RCR(Cri) 676, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the management having not taken a stand with regard to the initial appointment of the workman being contrary to the recruitment rules and the constitutional Scheme of employment before the Labour Court or before the High Court at the first instance, cannot be allowed to be raised before the High Court when the matter was remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fresh adjudication. Reliance has also been placed upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmir Singh v. Director, State Transport Corporation and others, 2010 2 SCT 61.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.