SHAM CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated 5.12.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and he has not been held entitled to any relief.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the workman had served as a Beldar for a period of almost 7 years i.e. 11.8.1984 till 31.12.1991 and his services were dispensed with without issuance of any notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice period or retrenchment compensation and as such, there had been a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further argued that after dispensing with the services of the petitioner the management had reengaged certain other employees and without making any offer to the petitioner and as such, there was a violation even as regards Section 25-H of the Act. Further argument raised is that there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to raising an industrial dispute and as such, it was incumbent and imperative for the Labour Court to have gone into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. Counsel would even refer to the documents appended at Annexures P-2 to P-4 along with the instant writ petition to contend that an application had been moved by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal for production of relevant record for the period in question and upon directions having been issued, the requisite record had been produced which would clearly reflect that the petitioner-workman had served for a period in excess of 240 days in the preceding 12 months taken from the date of alleged termination i.e. 31.12.1991.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out and the writ petition merits dismissal.