JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of the present writ petition seeks quashing of the award dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (respondent No. 1).

(2.) The petitioner joined M/s. Air Cell Digilink India Ltd., Karnal (respondent No. 2) on daily wage basis. He was working as Jeep Driver since 10.12.1996 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. His services were dispensed with without giving any notice or notice regarding pay or retrenchment compensation even though he had completed 240 days in a calendar year. It is alleged that the termination of services of the petitioner on 2.9.1997 by respondent No. 2 is in violation of the various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' - for short) including Section 25-F. The petitioner submitted a demand notice against his retrenchment which was referred by the Government to respondent No. 1 Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent No. 1, in terms of its award dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure- P.1), held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus to prove that he has continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination on 2.9.1997. Accordingly, the reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 2. The said award is assailed in the present petition.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 - Company. In the absence of said relationship, the present petition is not maintainable. At the relevant time the petitioner in fact had been working with M/s Industrial Security Detection and Placement Services and had left the service on 2.9.1997 on his own after receiving full and final payment. The receipt of full and final payment has been issued in favour of M/s Industrial Security Detection and Placement Services by the petitioner. As such, it cannot be said that he was in employment of two companies at the same time. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2-Company, along with its reply i.e. the reply before the Labour Court, annexed the receipt dated 17.9.1997 (Ex.R.1) which shows that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 4994/- from the above said M/s Industrial Security Detection and Placement Services. The same gives the details to the effect that the petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- for the month of August 1997, Rs. 1600/- as extra wages for August 1997, Rs. 1000/- as TA/DA for August 1997, Rs. 134/- as wages for two days for the month of September 1997 and Rs. 80/- as extra wages for September 1997. The said receipt has been signed by the petitioner and the execution of the same by the petitioner has not been denied by him. Thus, it is stated that the respondent No. 2 Company could not have produced better evidence than the one which has been acknowledged by the petitioner. It is further stated that the stand of the respondent No. 2 Company from the very beginning has been that the petitioner had never worked with it.