BRANCH MANAGER, HPFC Vs. VIDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above -noted two writ petitions which involve common questions are being disposed of by this single judgment.

(2.) IN CWP No.739 of 1998, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, briefly are that respondent No.1 Vidhi Singh was employed by the petitioner on 1 -2 -1991 as Chowkidar on daily rated basis. He worked as such till 14 -7 -1992 when his services were orally terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No.1 on the basis of which a reference came to be made to the Labour Court on 18 -2 -1993 under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was claimed by the respondent No.1 that his services were wrongly and illegally terminated by the petitioners without following the prescribed procedure laid down under the law.

(3.) THE petitioners in their replies filed before the Labour Court admitted the engagement of the two respondents as Chowkidars on daily rated basis. They also admitted the period of service rendered respectively by each of the two respondents Vidhi Singh and Hem Raj. It was pleaded that the two respondents were employed/ engaged on daily rated basis for a limited purpose and period to watch and guard the properties of Messrs. Chenab Rubber (P) Ltd. and Messrs. PVR Food Products which (sic) Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The employment of the two respondents as Chowkidar was co -terminus with the transfer of the above properties by the petitioners. It was pleaded that the nature of employment of the two respondents was the one falling under exception (bb) of S.2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.