RAJBIR KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the award dated 23.2.2011 The case of the petitioner is that he has been working with the respondents since 1993 till 2006 when his services were terminated. He thus raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala for adjudication with a question "whether termination of services of workman Rajbir Kumar is justified or not" If not, to what relief he is entitled." The petitioner's specific case was that he was working on daily wages for the period from 1993 till 2006 when his services were terminated.

(2.) As against this the respondents admitted in their reply to the demand notice that the petitioner was working on daily wages as unskilled labour w.e.f. 1993 but set up a case that petitioner had abandoned his services voluntarily.

(3.) The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was indeed a workman who had worked with the respondents since 1993 and has also completed 240 days of service with the respondents preceding 12 calendar months before the date of termination: which finding found supportive content from the statement of MW1 who admitted this fact. Likewise, the plea of voluntary abandonment of service was not believed by the Tribunal as there was no record produced by the respondents. The Tribunal thus concluded that the petitioner had completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 calendar months prior to his termination and also disbelieved the plea of voluntary abandonment but failed to grant protection of the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act by observing that respondents being a State, the procedure required for public appointment was not followed in the case of the employment of the petitioner.