STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11791 and 13993 of 1996 can conveniently be disposed of together because the questions involved in both these petitions are identical.

(2.) STATE of Punjab assails the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar. The relevant facts in the case of State of Punjab v. Hari Dass and Anr. are that Hari Dass had alleged that he was employed as a Beldar in the Public Works Department (Building and Roads), Provincial Division, Hoshiarpur on August 10, 1990. He worked continuously upto July 8, 1981. His services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or retrenchment compensation. He was getting Rs. 385/- per month as his wages. He gave a demand notice and a reference was made to the Labour Court. The said reference was declined by the Labour Court only on the ground that the Public Works Department is not an industry. A fresh reference was made in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the Public Works Department is an industry. In the reply filed, State of Punjab has contested the same. It was insisted that the Public Works Department (Building and Roads) is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act. The workman is stated to have not completed 240 days and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable. Plea was raised that the workman had been engaged for a specific period for a specific job and, therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment.

(3.) THE learned Labour Court framed the issues and held that the principle of res judicata is not attracted. It was held hat the petitioner P. W. D. (Bandr) Department is an industry and that services were terminated without any enquiry and the respondent workman had competed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months before his retrenchment. Accordingly, the reference was allowed. The termination order of respondent-workman was set aside. Keeping in view the delay and the earlier reference that had been answered, it was held that the workman would be entitled to l/3rd of wages after October 27, 1988 till July 20, 1995 and full wages from that date onwards. Of course, he was not reinstated.