BHAJAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ of Certiorari quashing the award - Annexure P -1 whereby the reference made on the demand of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) IN the demand notice as well as statement of claim, the petitioner had submitted that he was employed as Distemperman by respondent -department in the month of February, 1981 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 32/ - per day. Me used to be paid after the expiry of month. His services had been terminated on 1.11.91 without service of notice, charge -sheet or payment of compensation. He has also stated that juniors to him are still working in the department. The Management had submitted that the workman had not worked for 240 days. He was engaged for a specific period under P.W.D. 1.127 for specific job and his services were liable to be terminated automatically, after the expiry of specific period and job against which he was appointed. It was also pleaded that the reference is bad in law being beyond limitation. The allegation that the juniors are still working, had been denied. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues : -

(3.) DURING the cross -examination, the workman admitted that he was employed in December, 1983 on daily wages. He also admitted that he was employed for specific period and used to do the work of distemper on about 15 -20 Kothis. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workman was employed on daily wages and for specific job of distempering government buildings. The nature of job performed by the workman was such which would not have required continuous working of the workman for weeks, months or years. The work that used to be done by the workman was definitely of casual nature. Therefore, the Labour Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. Somasetty and Ors., in which it was held that the daily wager appointed on a project undertaken by State who was discharged on closure of the project, had been reinstated into service by the labour Court. Without jurisdiction. However, the Labour Court then adverted to the statement -made by the workman himself ill Ex.WW1/1 which had been prepared by the representative of the workman, after inspecting the record of the respondent -department. This statement showed that the workman did not work in November, 1991 at all. In October, 1991 he worked for 29 days, in August 1991, he did network, in July, 1991 he worked for 30 days, in June, 1991 he worked for 30 days, in May, 1991, he worked for 31 days, in April, 1991, he worked for 28 days, in March, 1991 he worked for 14 days, in February and January, 1991 he did not work for any day. In December, 1990 he worked for 25 days. Added together, it shows that the workman had not worked for 240 days. Consequently, the Labour Court held that the workman is not entitled to the benefit of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act.