BHOLA RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Ambala dated 30.1.2009 passed while determining reference no.20 of 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a workman had completed 240 days and his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal even though accepted that 240 days were completed by the petitioner yet it denied the benefit to the petitioner by observing that he was a daily wager and thus was not entitled to get any benefit on account of his termination. While making a submission in support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 1 SCT 675 and Krishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana), 2010 2 SCT 534as also the judgments of this Court titled as State of Haryana v. Shri Bhoop Singh and another, 2010 3 SCT 568and Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani v. The Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lahour Court, Rohtak and another, 2010 3 SCT 557.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that petitioner has not been able to establish that he had worked for 240 days and he further referred to the written statement which has been filed in response to the instant petition that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service with the respondents so as to justifiably raise the pleas which have been raised in the instant petition as also before the Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the impugned award. The Tribunal in any case had accepted that the petitioner had completed 240 days so as to be entitled to the benefits of the workman and protection of Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents have not assailed this finding and neither they have assailed the finding by which their defence was struck off. Thus there is no option but to accept the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days so as to entitle him to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act.