MANOJ KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of award dated 12.12.2003, Annexure P-5, dismissing his claim statement.

(2.) It is the case of petitioner-workman that he worked as Chowkidar at D.C. rates at P.R. Centre, Ambala Cantt from 21.9.1994 till 1.12.1995 and had completed more than 240 days' service in the 12 preceding months before the termination of his services. It was on 1.12.1995 when his services were terminated without giving any notice or compensation in lieu of the notice. Petitioner has stated that the persons junior to him were retained and even fresh appointments were also made thereafter and thus, this act of the respondent-department is in violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) to (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act). Petitioner challenged the termination order by serving upon the respondent-department a demand notice. Later, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication where the petitioner-workman filed his claim statement. Upon notice thereof, respondent-department in its reply took up the plea that the workman was engaged as Chowkidar only on daily wages at D.C. Rates on 21.9.1994 to guard the stock at P.R. Centre, Ambala and on delivery of stock to Food Corporation of India, the services of the workman were not required and accordingly, he was relieved of his duties on 30.11.1995. It was denied that he had worked for 240 days. It was further stated that neither any worker junior to the petitioner-workman was retained in service nor any one was appointed afresh after the termination of his services. It was denied that the petitioner-workman ever wrote any letter to them to re-employ him. Replication was filed by the petitioner-workman to the written statement denying the averments contained therein and reiterated the one in the claim statement.

(3.) In support of their respective case, evidence was led by the parties.