ANOOP CHAUHAN Vs. LABOUR COURT AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2012 passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in IT Case No.02/02 by which his statement of claim has been rejected on a technical count that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of workman as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Helper by the respondent No.2 in the year 1997 and his services were terminated in violation of Sec. 33(A) of the Act of 1947 without following the due process of law. Counsel submits that for redressal of his grievances an industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court but the same has been rejected only on a technical count that the petitioner is not a workman as the petitioner was working on contract basis through contractor. Counsel submits that while passing the order impugned the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the definition of 'workman' and the State amendment which was substituted under the Act of 1947 in the year 1958. Counsel submits that as per the amendment in Sec. 2(S) of the Act of 1947 the following words have been inserted which reads as under:

(3.) Counsel submits that without appreciating the aforesaid amendment the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, hence interference of this Court is warranted.