KULJIT SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order disposes of CWP Nos. 677 and 679 of 1993.

(2.) IN these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Labour Court, Patiala made in Reference No. 645 of 1988 and 509 of 1988 dated May 8, 1992 on identical grounds.

(3.) THE petitioners were the employees of the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation (for short, the Corporation ). Their services were terminated. They got references made to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) for adjudicating the following dispute : Whether termination of services of Sh. Parshotam Lal and Sh. Paljit Singh (Petitioners in C. W. P. No. 677 of 1993 and 679 of 1993 respectively) is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled? The Labour Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers on daily wage basis for lining of water courses under the World Bank Scheme. This work was completed in the month of May, 1987. They were rendered surplus and the funds of the Corporation were also exhausted. One month's notice was served upon them and they were relieved from duty in May 25, 1987. It held that the retrenchment was valid.