TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner was working as a keyman with the Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda. His services were terminated with effect from Dec. 1,1991. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner raised a dispute. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court. Vide its award dated Jan. 2,1997, copy of which has been produced as Annexure P1 with the writ petition, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days. In spite of that his services were terminated without compliance with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the petitioners claim has been rejected on the ground that the water works where the petitioner was working, had been transferred to the Public Health Department, Haryana, on April 2,1993, and that he having not impleaded the new employer, was not entitled to claim the relief.

(2.) Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court could have implead the Public Health Department, which was a necessary party, and that the petitioners claim could not have been rejected. Reliance has been placed on the authority of the Supreme Court reported as Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Orissa and others, AIR 1964 SC 1746.

(3.) The dispute regarding the termination of the petitioners services was before the Labour Court. In order to effectively decide the dispute, it had the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party. The rule in this behalf has been clearly enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammons case (supra). In view of this decision, we find that the petitioner could not have been denied the relief only on the ground that the Public Health Department had not been impleaded as a party.