SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2481-LPA of 2016

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2015.

(3.) The appellant is a workman, engaged as Pump Operator on daily wages. His services were dispensed with in the year 1996 and he claimed a reference in 1997 which was answered in 2001 against the workman which led to a writ petition and SLP, both of which met the same fate as the reference before the Labour Court. The workman then raised another dispute in the year 2002 alleging violation of Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act and took a plea that number of persons were employed as Pump Operator in the year 1998 and since the appellant was a retrenched employee, offer ought to have been made to him with a preferential claim to employment. The Labour Court accepted the plea of the appellant but the learned Single Judge negated on the ground that reliance placed upon the decision in Gulab Singh v. Barara Cooperative Marketing and Processing Society Limited, Barara and another, 2004(4) RSJ 521 was misplaced. While drawing a distinction it relied on the testimony of Balbir Singh, SDO to negate the claim of the appellant. This witness had categorically stated that the appellant's initial entry into service was not in accordance with the accepted public mode of employment, whereas the employees who gained entry into service in 1998 were requisitioned through the employment exchange. The appellant would contend that this was never the case set up by the respondents and it is a new twist given to the entire controversy. The learned Single Judge drew a distinction on this aspect by concluding that character of employment insisted upon by a workman while enforcing the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has necessarily to be similar to the one from where he was disengaged. In this regard the learned Single Judge further observed that the engagement of the workman was not from the public mode of employment and thus no parity could be drawn when the workmen were engaged after requisitioning the names through the employment exchange. The evidence on record before the Tribunal clearly indicates the correctness of the observation made by the learned Single Judge. In a span of two years the appellant had served only for 159 days, the details of which are extracted herebelow :-