RAHEESA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned award dtd. 31/3/2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, with certain other prayers made in the present petition.

(2.) The facts, as reflected in the present petition, are that the petitioners asserted that they worked as Sweeper in Labour Room of General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula since December, 2013. They were paid wages on monthly basis. Two other persons were also similarly engaged as Sweeper in November, 2012 in the Labour Room. Services of the petitioners were terminated in April and May, 2015 respectively. However, at the time of termination of service, neither any notice was given nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioners. Asserting these facts, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The said reference has been answered against the petitioners. The Labour Court has held that there was no employer-employee relationship, as such, and hence the petitioners are not entitled to any benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Challenging the said award, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had completed 240 days of service in the employment of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits and protection under the Act. The counsel has further submitted that even if the stand of the respondents is taken into consideration, the petitioners were being paid per delivery and therefore, being piece-rate paid employees, the petitioners were covered by the provisions of the Act. The counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Versus Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 (6) SCC 584, to submit that mode of payment, source of recruitment and nature of work are immaterial; while considering the case of a workman for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.