SATPAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT GURDASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award to the Labour Court dated 9. 2. 1999, copy Annexure P/1, vide which it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 1. 1. 1984. His services were terminated on 30. 4. 1985 and the demand notice was issued by him on 4. 8. 1993. It is his case that his services were terminated illegally, without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation or without any disciplinary action against him. The respondent employer had controverted the claim of the petitioner and contended that the reference was time barred. It was admitted by the employer that he was appointed on daily wage basis on 1. 1. 1984 to 29. 2. 1984 with breaks and his services were terminated for want of post and that he was not entitled to any protection of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It is further contended that he never rendered service for 240 days as alleged. It was also contended that the reference was hopelessly time-barred.

(3.) THE Labour Court has relied on the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society. It is a judgment of this Court 1998 (2) SCT 93 (Pandh) (DB) : reported as 1998 (2) PLR 55.