STATE OF HARIYANA Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners impugn the award dated 15.10.1998. The respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and pleaded that the dispensation of his services was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(f)(g)(h) of the Act.

(2.) A reference was made to the effect whether the termination of the services of respondent Sanjay Kumar was valid or justified and if not, to what relief he is entitled to?

(3.) The respondent/workman in order to substantiate his case pleaded that he had been working from 11.3.199-1 to 31.7.1991, 21.8.1991 to 20.9.1991, 5.1.1992 to 31.3.1992 when his services were terminated. He thus, pleaded that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and was protected by the provisions of the Act which contemplated that the petitioners could not terminate his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. He further pleaded that the petitioners had not complied with the provisions of Section 25(g) of the Act and, a number of persons junior to him had been retained. The petitioners did not deny that the persons junior to the respondent/workman had been retained, but set up the plea that the respondent/workman was working on daily wages. It was specifically pleaded that he was working as a Helper on daily wages and thus dispensation of his services did not warrant the observance of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. It was thus, pleaded that even if it is concluded that the respondent had completed 240 days of service, reinstatement could not have been granted in favour of the respondent/workman and the Tribunal has thus gone wrong while giving the finding.