SUMER SINGH Vs. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under challenge is rejection of a reference sought at the instance of the workman complaining that the termination had been effected in the year 1999 without following the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman's contention was that he had been working continuously from January 1,1993 in Aravali Project and when the project stopped, he was also terminated from service. No written statement had been filed before the Labour Court but the Labour Court examined the evidence of the workman to find that the workman had been appointed only on a project as a daily rated worker and that with the cessation of project, his services were also terminated. The Labour Court also found that there had been no proof that the workman had 240 days of continuous service prior to the date of termination. The Labour Court also examined the issue of the validity of the appointment and held that the order of appointment had been made by a person, who was not competent to make the order of appointment and on all the counts, the workman had failed before the Labour Court. In the writ petition before the Court, learned counsel refers to the fact that in the absence of written statement by the management, the workman's contention that he had worked continuously for 240 days prior to the date of termination ought to have been accepted. A wide proposition, which is sought to be urged that if there was no statement, the workman's contention must be taken to be established, in my view, is not correct. The initial burden of proof relating to the engagement of 240 days of continuous service in order that non-compliance of Section 25-F could be urged can never be taken as established without any clear evidence relating to the proof of his service prior to the termination. Even notice issued prior to the filing of the claim statement by the Union on behalf of the workman and several others similarly placed, does not specifically urge the contention that the workman had 240 days of continuous service. The notice only canvasses for redeployment of the workman in other projects and also takes up issues relating to a seniority list prepared by the management, which according to the Union did not fully accord with the representations given by the Union. With no definite contention relating to the continuous service of 240 days by the workman, the complaint of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot simply stick.

(2.) The case has also been dealt with on another aspect that even if he had 240 days of service, the workman cannot complain of retrenchment by an admitted position that the workman had been employed on project and the further admission that the project had also come to an end in the year 1999. The Labour Court applied the situation, as one falling within the four corners of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and rejected the workman's contention.

(3.) Learned counsel, Sh. Bakshi refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003-II-LLJ-359 (SC), which dealt with the issue of what could constitute retrenchment and when the exception carved out through Clause (bb) in Section 2(oo) could still operate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: