RAJEEV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reference under Sec. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered against the petitioner by the learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid award and hence, has preferred the instant writ petition.

(2.) Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal:-

(3.) Respondents contested the claim on several grounds. According to them, petitioner was not a workman. He was initially engaged as piece rated Data Entry Operator and w.e.f. September, 1997 his remuneration payment manner was changed to daily wages. Petitioner's services were liable to be terminated with closure of the project. Since petitioner was not engaged against a regular cadre post, his services could not be regularized. Respondents denied violation of any provisions of the Act. Further according to them, petitioner's services had been engaged on contract basis in September, 1997 in the Planning Department on co-terminus basis and it is for this reason, he has been paid retrenchment compensation for the period by construing his effective service from the year 1997 upto 2002 i.e. in the Planing Department. Learned Labour Court after considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the the parties, decided the reference petition and dismissed the claim petition on 3/10/2012. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has moved this Court.