PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order Annexure P-6 by which the reference claimed by the petitioner under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been declined.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he joined the department of the respondents as Malicum-Chowkidar on daily wage basis on 1.6.1992 and his services were illegally terminated on 30.12.1992. He pleaded that even though he had not completed 240 days but compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act was mandatory. He further pleaded that the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act had been violated as juniors to him had been retained in service. The demand notice also contained an averment that the respondents had resorted to employment of other persons in the year 2006 and this conferred a right upon him to be considered for re-employment by virtue of the provisions of Section 25H of the Act.

(3.) The respondents submitted a reply to the demand notice and denied that the petitioner was a workman. They submitted that the petitioner was employed on daily wages with effect from 1.6.1992 as a casual laborer and no appointment letter was issued to him. His services were never terminated, rather he stopped attending to his duties from 30.12.1992 of his own, which, according to them was evident from the fact that he never represented to the authorities even after a lapse of more than a decade.