RAJ KANWAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman has challenged the award dated 20.4.2012, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby reference was answered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed as Beldar with the respondent-management on 17.5.2005. Without issuing a letter, his services were terminated on 1.4.2007. Once there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and the petitioner having worked for more than 240 days, in a calendar year preceding his termination, he was entitled to be reinstated with back-wages.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has come in the evidence produced before the Tribunal that the petitioner had been employed through a Contractor. He could not produce any material on record to show that he had, in fact, worked for 240 days. In support of that plea, he had produced only a witness, who was working in the same department. There was no trust worthy documentary evidence produced on record. In any case, once the petitioner had been employed by a contractor, it cannot be said that he was directly in employment with the respondent-management and there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.