FAGGU RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 30.09.2004 (Annexure P -8) whereby, the Labour Court Ambala declined the reference and dismissed the claim of the workman on the ground that he had not completed 240 days from May 1995 to April, 1996. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that in the demand notice under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.08.1998 (Annexure P -3), the petitioner -workman took the plea that he had worked from 01.12.1992 to 30.04.1996 with various breaks and his services had been terminated when a regular post of a Mali had been created to accommodate some other person. He had made numerous representations but of no avail.

(2.) IN the reply to the demand notice dated 30.09.1998 (Annexure P -4), the respondent -management took a stand that the appointment was on daily wage basis and denied that the department wanted to accommodate some other person. That appointment letters had been issued on 10.01.1995 and on 19.01.1996 for 89 days. In fact, the post of Mali had become surplus at the Murthal plant and the regular employees had been transferred and posted at Shahabad plant. A claim petition was preferred on the same set of allegations which was rebutted by filing the reply and replication was also filed.

(3.) THE Labour Court, after taking into consideration the statement of the workman as WW -1 and Narender Kumar, Accountant as MW -1, held that the statement of the workman that he had worked upto 17.07.1996 was contrary to his stand that he had worked from 30.04.1996. As per the record and the copies of Exs. M -1 to M -31, which were the wages and attendance sheet, he worked upto April 1996 and while calculating backward from 30.04.1996, it was held that he worked only for 229 days in the preceding 12 months. The reliance upon the experience certificates that he had worked from 01.12.1992 onwards till 30.04.1996 with breaks would not mean that he had a continuous and regular appointment and, therefore, it could not be held that there was any violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. The argument that another person had been appointed and accommodated was also rebutted on the ground that the plant at Murthal had closed and the staff posted there had become surplus and accordingly, was posted at Shahabad Markanda. Reliance was placed upon the letter of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated 20.07.1998 and it was held that the said person namely Ram Khilan, being a regular employee had a much better right than a daily wager. Thus, it would be clear that a categorical finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had failed to complete 240 days and, therefore, the protection under Section 25 -F of the Act could not be granted to him.