SURINDER SINGH Vs. GARRISON ENGINEER-1, R&D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the workman, who alleges that he was selected and appointed as a Lift Operator/Technician in December 2001 in the office of the Garrison Engineer-1, R & D-respondent No.1. Initially, he was kept on probation for a period of one year and continued to work on the post till 25.05.2005 without any break in service. Thereafter, he was not allowed to enter the premises and was told orally that his services have been terminated. He was working with respondent No.1 regularly and his attendance was also marked in the office. His work and conduct was never adversely commented upon. He possesses the required qualifications and experience for the job. On completion of more than three years of service, he was entitled to regularization thereof but his services have been terminated without issuing any notice or paying any compensation or passing any order on record. In fact, he was simply not allowed to enter the premises and, thus, not allowed to mark his attendance on 26.05.2005 onwards. He has placed on record a photo copy of the attendance register, showing his attendance from 24.01.2002 to 02.06.2004 (Annexure P-3). The alleged identity card issued to him has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, wherein the date of validity is mentioned upto 31.03.2005 (the document, on perusal mentions as "entry pass"). The original identity card (entry pass) is alleged to have been taken back by the respondent-Management under force and duress. The proof of depositing of said document with the security section on 26.05.2005 has been appended as Annexure P-4. Petitioner had made number of representations to respondent No.1 for allowing him to enter the premises and to continue on his job but without any success.

(2.) Faced with this situation, petitioner filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), highlighting his grievance wherein he stated that his services have been terminated without issuing any order with effect from 26.05.2005. Neither any notice has been given to him prior to such termination nor any salary/payment, calculating compensation as mandated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") has been made to him. Persons junior to him have been retained in job and fresh appointments have also been made. Petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year prior to his termination and, thus, his termination was illegal.

(3.) After the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Central Labour Court for adjudication of the matter. The reference, which was made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, for adjudication, reads as under:-