ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Anil Kumar joined the service of Lottery Department, government of Haryana as a Clerk with effect from March 17, 1994 on daily wage basis. The petitioner was permitted to continue upto May 31, 1995 in that capacity. However, his services were terminated with effect from June 1, 1995. It was claimed by the petitioner that while terminating his services neither any retrenchment compensation has been paid to him nor any notice of termination had been served. Accordingly, he claimed violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A demand notice was served by him on November 17, 1999. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court ).

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents. The factum of his engagement with effect from 17, 1994 was admitted but it was maintained that he was engaged on a contractual basis. Since he was engaged for the process of checking of prize winning tickets and later on the aforesaid process having been computerised there was no necessity to engage the workers/clerks for the aforesaid purpose. Accordingly, the respondents maintained that his services were no more required and had been discontinued. An objection was also taken that since the notice of demand had been served by the petitioner after the expiry of nearly 5 years, therefore, the reference was barred by limitation.

(3.) THE learned Labour Court on adjudication of the evidence brought by the authorities on the record held that the petitioner-workman had rendered the service for a period of 293 days in twelve preceding months prior to his termination. It was also held that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Accordingly, the retrenchment of the petitioner was held to be illegal, null and void. However, the learned Labour Court held that since the demand notice had been issued by the petitioner after the expiry of more than 4-1/2 years and no explanation had been rendered by him with regard to the aforesaid delay, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the reference was declined. The award of the Labour Court dated December 10, 2003 has been appended as Annexure P. 4 with the present petition and has been impugned before us.