HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order/Award dated 2.5.1991 (Annexure P -6) passed by Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Hisar, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been reinstated into service with back -wages to the extent of 50% payable from 1.8.1986 to 1.5.1991 and full wages from the date of award i.e. 2.5.1991. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 -workman joined the service of the petitioner -university under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ICAR) Scheme as casual worker on daily wages basis on 7.1.1985. The respondent No. 2 was to be paid wages at the Deputy Commissioner's rate and his attendance was on muster roll. The ICAR scheme was to continue up to 31.3.1987. The respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute that his services had been verbally terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1986, whereby he was stopped to come to attend the work. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 stopped coming to the work on his own w.e.f. 1.8.1986. Three years after stopping to come to the work, respondent No. 2 sent a demand notice dated 18.7.1989 (Annexure P -1) to which the petitioner replied on 14.08.1989 (Annexure P -2). In reply, it is the stand of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was a seasonal worker and he was to be paid wages at the rates fixed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar as were applicable from time to time. On notice, respondent No. 2 appeared and admitted in reply that he joined as a casual labourer initially on 7.1.1985 on daily wages. It is also admitted that no appointment letter was given to him. He was being paid wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. The respondent also admitted the fact that his attendance was marked only in the muster roll maintained by the petitioner -University. It is further mentioned in the reply that his services had been terminated on 1.8.1986 verbally. The termination was bad in law. The respondent No. 2 had been rightly reinstated and awarded wages. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had completed more than 240 days in twelve calendar months proceeding the date of his termination. There is complete non -compliance of the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short the Act).

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared to address arguments on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the ICAR scheme was only up to 31.3.1987. The petitioner was employed on daily wages as a casual worker under the ICAR scheme. The respondent No. 2 at his own stopped coming to perform the work w.e.f. 1.8.1986 and the demand notice had been issued three years thereafter. Specific reply was given by the petitioner - University to the demand notice submitted by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was a seasonal daily wages worker under a specified scheme so the services of respondent No. 2 were purely temporary in nature and co -terminus with the scheme in connection with which he was engaged as a casual worker. But demand notice has been issued after a considerable delay when the scheme had already expired. The impugned award is against law.