RAMPHAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on December 5, 1981 as a mate on work-charge basis and as alleged continued to work as such upto February 1985. His services had been changed from that of work charge to daily wage basis with effect from February 1985 but without any intimation or notice to the petitioner. A representation was sent by him in the month of September 1985 to the Chief Engineer, Canal Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and a prayer had also been made that his services be regularised as he has been working on work-charge basis. The representation was not dealt with as no reply was received by him. However, the Chief Engineer directed vide communication dated July 31, 1986 that the Executive Engineer, Rohtak, may settle the grievance of the petitioner and in pursuant thereto the Sub- Divisional Officer, Canal Lining Sub-Divisional and ADE Rohtak was directed by the Executive Engineer vide communication dated September 8, 1986, to look into the grievance.

(2.) The petitioner was surprised to find that his services had been terminated with effect from August 7, 1987 without any notice or any retrenchment compensation or any enquiry having been conducted by the management. Against this act, the representation was filed on August 25, 1987 and that the petitioner continued to represent to the authorities with the request of reinstatement and back wages accordingly.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that a demand notice dated 11.2.2000, under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was served upon the management which was contested. However, a reference was made by the Competent Authority to the Labour Court vide order dated September 26, 2000.