RAMESHWAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 6702 of 2013 dated 1st September, 2015, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner was dismissed and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(2.) Factual Matrix: This appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed from the services by the respondentState. He was working as a daily wage worker in the Water Resources Department, Swarnrekha Project, Chandil Complex, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur. On 5th October, 2005, reference was referred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Reference Case No. 33 of 2005 was instituted before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Labour Court, Jamshedpur has decided the reference and has pointed out that the workman has not worked with the Management from April, 1990 to January, 1992, hence, there is no question of terminating the services of the workman from February, 1992, whatsoever. It has been observed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur that this appellant has not been able to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days. Against this award in Reference Case No. 33 of 2005, W.P.(L) No. 6702 of 2013 was preferred by the appellant which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st September, 2015 and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(3.) Arguments advances by the learned counsel for the appellant: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier in another case, an application was preferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for getting remuneration/wages. This application was decided in favour of this appellant, against which, the Management had filed a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court. Looking to the said order, it appears that this appellant has worked for more than 240 days. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the definition of the word 'Workman' includes the daily wage worker under the Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the provisions of Section 25F has to be followed. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed.