STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement and back wages is in challenge through the writ petition at the instance of the Forest Officer, Mahendergarh. The contention of the workman was that he had been appointed as a worker w.e.f. 01.06.1978 and that he had been illegally terminated on 01.10.1993. The averment in the petition reads as follows :-

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the State brings to my attention at the forefront that the worker had initially approached the Court in when he was seeking for regularization of his services. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the workman to make a representation to the employer. Such representation was made and the authorities disposed of the representation on the following words :-

(3.) The learned counsels submissions are three-fold : one, it was the duty of the workman to show that he had 240 days of continuous service to entitle him to the benefit of Section 25-F and it could not have been merely a matter of assumption. Secondly, there was no regular post and he had been merely a seasonal employee. His services had been made without conforming to rules and therefore irregular. He cannot, therefore, seek for reinstatement. Thirdly, the service itself being seasonal, the cessation of work on the completion of the period would not amount to retrenchment as per the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb).