BAL KISHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a workman challenging the award of the Labour Court, Panipat in reference No. 218 of 1994. The petitioner was working as a Chowkidar with respondents No. 2 and 3 and has alleged that his services were terminated without assigning any reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was a monthly wage worker. He had served a demand notice under Section 2 of the Act and the State Govt. referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner filed a claim statement. He has also contended that the termination of his service is an unfair labour practice because he had already completed 240 days and that after the termination of his service, the respondents No. 2 and 3 employed S/Shri Mahipal, Joginder and Narain etc. in place of the petitioner. He was also not paid any retrenchment compensation and that respondents No. 2 and 3 have violated the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act.

(2.) The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed the written statement before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had after considering the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that it was duly proved that the termination of the petitioner was justified and was in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted their written statement to the writ petition and have contended that the allegations made in the writ petition are not correct and that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days but has worked for only 209 days. It is also contended that no appointment letter or termination letter was issued to the petitioner and whenever there was a demand on a specific work such like labour was employed according to the urgent need of the work.