DARSHAN LAL Vs. DIRECTOR STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the award passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, dated September 20, 1982, refusing to grant any relief to the petitioner, he filed this writ petition to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Legal Assistant and has put in Service of 3 years 9 months and his services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or enquiry on April 3, 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The management, namely, the Punjab Roadways, contended that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the said Act. This contention of the management was found favour with the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman. The Labour Court did not decide the matter on merits as it held that the petitioner is not a workman.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is drawing a sum of Rs. 1,150 at the time of termination of his services. Therefore, according to him, Clause (iv) of Section 2 (s) the petitioner cannot be termed as a workman under the definition. Clause (iv) of Section 2 (s) reads as follows: