CHHIDDI SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur on 16.5.85 in case No. 1/80, is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a workman with M/s. Dalmia Dairy Industries, Bharatpur on 6.4.78. His service was terminated on 2.4.79. The petitioner raised a dispute against termination of his service and when the parties failed to arrive at a settlement, the Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication. Petitioner filed his statement of claim on 28.4.80 and alleged therein that he had rendered more than 240 days of service in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of his service and his service has been terminated without any notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation in terms of Sec. 25-F of 1947 Act. He had a right to be confirmed in service after completion of one year's period but the employer has resorted to unfair labour practice and terminated his service. The petitioner also stated that S/Shri Ramesh son of Chhotu, Niroti, Jaman son of Chhotu, Radhey son of Samal etc. had been appointed after termination of his service. In its written statement (Annexure-3 of the writ petition), respondent No. 2 asserted that the petitioners was engaged on casual/temporary basis with effect from 9.10.78. He was not employed on a permanent post. He was engaged for a specified period and his service was not extended on account of non-availability of work. Respondent No. 2 denied the allegation of petitioner that he has worked for a period of 12 months and has completed 240 days of service. According to respondent No. 2 it was not necessary to make compliance of Section 25-F of 1947 Act. The petitioner had been engaged on purely temporary basis for a temporary work. According to respondent No. 1 temporary labour is engaged with the increase of quantity of milk. They are engaged as Dairymen. Persons who have been named by the workman have not been engaged in place of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner filed his own affidavit and he was subjected to cross-examination by the representative of the employer. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit of Shri L.N. Mathur and he was cross examined by representative of the the workman. The workman as well as the employer produced certain documents before the Labour Court. These documents include the statement dated 28.2.85 filed by Shri B.N. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.