SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this order, I propose to decide C.W.P. Nos. 18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal v. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P. No. 18648 of 2001 (Surinder v. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P. No. 4808 of 2004 (Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P. No. 4811 of 2004 (Bhaga Ram v. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P. No. 4812 of 2004 (Kala v. State of Haryana and others) wherein award dated 9.3.2001 has been challenged and C.W.P. No. 4807 of 2004 (Satbir v. State of Haryana and others) wherein challenge is to the award dated 12.3.2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, as common questions of facts and law are involved therein.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners joined the service of the respondents as Beldars in January, 1988 and their services were terminated on 1.12.1996 without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act). It is contended that the petitioners having worked for more than 240 days with the respondents preceding the date of their termination, were entitled to the protection under the ID Act. He has been contended that the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the appointment of the petitioners-workmen being on a particular work/project, is not sustainable as the petitioners have been continuously working from the year 1988 upto their date of termination i.e. 1.12.1996. For this submission, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the statement of Devi Dutt Kumbhoj, SDE B&R P-1 Naraingarh, who according to him has admitted that the petitioners were working as labourer-workmen and had been working even before December, 1995 with the respondents. He, on that basis, contends that the findings given by the Labour Court that the petitioners were appointed against a particular project/contract is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside thereby granting them the benefit of reinstatement in service with back wages as per the provisions of the ID Act. He states that this witness has admitted that services of Som Nath and Bisha Ram have been regularized and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 H and G have not been complied with.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the Labour Court has discussed the evidence which has been produced before it and has after considering the pleadings and the evidence, given a well reasoned and well considered award wherein it has been held that since the services of the petitioners were covered under the definition of 2 (oo) (bb), therefore, the same cannot be termed as "retrenchment" and that being so, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit under Section 25 F of the ID Act. Counsel for the respondent-State further contends that as no evidence has been produced by the petitioners showing that the provisions of Section 25 G and H have not been complied with and any person junior to them has been retained and in the light of the categoric statement of the Management witnesses that no person junior to the petitioners has been retained nor any person has been employed after the petitioners in the said project, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted on this count as well.