ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is up in arms before this Court seeking quashing of orders dated 12.8.2003 and 5.7.2004 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively) passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) On 4.4.2003, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute challenging termination of his services by respondent No. 2 on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). The dispute was contested by respondent No. 2. Efforts for re-conciliation were made but to no avail. On receipt of failure report, the appropriate Government passed the impugned order dated 12.8.2003, which reads as under: You are informed that the Government does not consider your case as fit to be sent for decision to the Labour Court because from enquiry it has come to light that you have not worked for 240 days in any calendar year with the institution. Hence, your period of service in the institution was less than 240 days and moreover, you have also not produced any evidence from which it could be proved that you have been working for a period more than 240 days. In these circumstances your demand notice is rejected.

(3.) Thereafter, the application of the petitioner for review of the order dated 12.8.2003 was also dismissed by the appropriate Government vide the impugned order dated 5.7.2004: Your above application has been enquired into and since there are no such facts contained therein which need consideration, therefore, there is no need for change of the decision taken by the Government earlier.