DIRECTOR FOOD AND SUPPLIES Vs. PARKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved and collectively argued by the counsel for the parties, therefore, I propose to dispose of the instant writ petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which are essential to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the writ petitions, have been extracted from (1) CWP No.9148 of 1993 titled as "The Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab & Ors. vs. Parkash Singh & Anr." for ready reference in this context.

(2.) The epitome of the facts and evidence, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that the respondents-workmen were working as Chowkidars. Their services were stated to have been illegally terminated by the petitioner- Management of the District Food & Supplies Controller (for brevity "the petitioner-Management"). In the wake of an industrial dispute raised by the workmen, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (for short "the LC") for adjudication, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The workmen submitted their respective claims (Annexure P2) before the LC in this respect.

(3.) The petitioner-management contested the claim of the workmen and filed its written statement (Annexure P3), inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the reference petition, cause of action and locus standi of the workmen. According to the petitioner-management that it engaged the three categories, namely, regular, temporary and daily wages, of Chowkidars depending upon the increase/decease of the volume of work (food grain stock). The workmen were claimed to have been engaged as daily wages Chowkidars. Their services were terminated being surplus staff. It was claimed that since the provisions of the Act were not applicable, so, the workmen are not entitled to any benefit. The petitioner-management has vaguely denied the remaining allegations contained in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.