SURINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of Certiorari quashing the award dated 18.11.3998, Annexure P -6, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial -Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat, in which the reference has been answered against the workman -petitioner holding that he is not entitled to any relief.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Mehtani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the workman -petitioner joined service of S.M. Hindu Senior Secondary School, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the Management), as Mali, on 10.8.1981. His services were terminated on 10.4.1984. He was re -employed in the school as Gardener on 14.1.1991. When he was working in the school between the period i.e. from 10.8.1981 to 10.8.1984, he had not been paid any dear -ness allowance. Now, when the workman -petitioner had been re -employed, he had moved an application to the Principal of the school for payment of dearness allowance for the period from 10.8.1981 to 10.8.1984. Instead of paying the workman -petitioner dearness allowance, his services were terminated without complying with the principle of natural justice or provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He had neither been given any notice prior to the termination nor paid any compensation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The workman -petitioner sent a demand notice on 5.7.1993. The appropriate Government made a reference to the Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act.

(3.) BOTH the parties led their respective evidence. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of both the parties, has come to a conclusion that the workman -petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding the termination of his service.