PRAKASH CHAND Vs. P.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner raised a dispute relating to his retrenchment which was ultimately referred by the State Government to the Labour Court to determine as to "whether the termination of Shri Parkash Chand by the Resident Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar, District Mandi (H.P.) with effect from 22.9.1978 without any notice or compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without enquiry is legal and justified, if not, to what relief and service benefits Shri Parkash Chand is entitled to -

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was engaged on March, 1973 as T-Mate and thereafter he discharged the duty of carpenter with effect from 1.10.1977 to 22.9.1978. He had further averred that since he had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment from 23.9.1978. He was entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer i.e. respondent Board had taken preliminary objection of delay in raising the dispute. The petitioner had appeared as witness before the Labour Court and stated that he worked with Junior Engineer, Veerbhan and SDO Mr. Thakur and was working in Sub Division at Shanan. Sh. Jasvinder Pal the Resident Engineer of Shanan Power House had also appeared as RW-1 and stated that the workman was not recruited or employed by the Board. The Labour Court had answered the reference in negative on 24.11.2001. Primarily the reference has been answered in negative on the ground of delay and that the petitioner was not employed as workman with the Board.

(3.) Mr. Dharamvir Sharma had strenuously argued that the Labour Court could not answer the reference in negative on the ground of delay once the State Government had made the reference. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma further submitted that the delay could only be the factor for moulding the relief and reference in its entirety could not be answered in the negative. He then submitted that the sufficient material had been placed on record oral as well as documentary proving that the workman was employed with the Board. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Board had supported the award dated 24.11.2001.