NEK RAM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as, "workman") has laid challenge to Award dtd. 28/2/2017, passed by the Labour Court-cum-

(2.) Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that the Appropriate Government made following reference under Sec. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(3.) The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that he was engaged by the authorities on daily wage basis on Muster Roll with effect from July, 1998. He continued to work till 2000, as such, he had completed 240 days. The workman alleged that his services were unlawfully terminated by the respondent verbally with effect from the year, 2000, without issuing one month's notice and retrenchment compensation, as envisaged under Sec. 25F of the Act. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that since the respondent violated provisions of Sec. 25 of the Act, his oral termination deserves to be set aside. While placing on record factum with regard to retention of his juniors at the time of his . retrenchment, workman also alleged that the principle of 'last come, first go' was also not followed by the respondent. He further claimed that after his termination, respondent engaged many persons, who subsequently worked as daily wage Beldars but at no point in time, opportunity, if any, was ever afforded to him for re-employment, as such, action of the respondent, which is in sheer violation of the provisions contained under Sec. 25H of the Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside.