PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PHUL Vs. MANINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the above titled two writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the common award dated 7.7.2015 (Annexure P/8) passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda whereby Maninder Singh, workman herein, was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- for each completed year of service. While CWP-11338- 2016 has been filed by the employer-Management challenging the award of compensation, the workman has filed CWP-4163-2017 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages or in the alternative, to enhance the amount of compensation. Therefore, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of these writ petitions, are being taken from CWP-11338-2016 ; that Maninder Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was appointed as Driver on 06.01.2004 by Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Phul and he continued to work till 06.07.2007. He was getting wages @ Rs. 2,649/- per month and his services were terminated on 31.07.2007 without issuance of any notice, charge-sheet or holding enquiry. The petitioner raised industrial dispute on the basis of which, reference was made to learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, "the Tribunal").

(3.) Petitioner-Management had come with the plea that the management- Panchayat Samiti, Phul does not come within the definition of "Industry") under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Plea was also taken by the petitioner-Management that the claimant was engaged on the terms and conditions that his appointment would be purely temporary basis and his services can be dispensed with at any time without any notice. The Management passed Resolution No. 43 that the workman would be appointed on daily wages on D.C. rates till the joining of regular employee as the post of Driver was a regular post. Thereafter applications were invited from general public. Since the appointment of the workman was engaged for a specific period, there is no question of issuance of any notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation.