- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby division Bench of that Court upheld the award passed by the industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar ordering reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages. Sanjay, respondent, was engaged as Chowkidar on causal basis by the District Manager, HAFED, Jind on August, 1998 for 29 days. On expiry of the said contract, fresh contracts were executed from time to time and he rendered service there until December 31, 1998. He was engaged afresh by the district Manager, HAFED, Hissar on January 15, 1999 where he worked upto May 31, 1999. As the service of the respondent was not renewed after May 31, 1999, he issued demand notice under Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "id Act") raising dispute to the effect that his services were illegally terminated. Conciliation efforts having failed, upon receipt of the failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the concerned Labour court. The respondent in his statement of claim before the labour Court set up the case that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination with the HAFED. He raised the grievance that without following the mandatory procedure provided in Section 25-F of the ID Act, his services were terminated which amounted to illegal retrenchment. It is pertinent to notice here that the respondent clubbed the period of his engagement with district Manager, HAFED, Jind and District Manager, HAFED, hissar while computing 240 days of continuous service.
(3.) THE Appellant-Management traversed the workman's claim and set up the plea that the workman was engaged on contractual basis by the District Manager, HAFED, Jind for the period from August 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 and there he completed 145 days of service. The District Manager, HAFED, hissar, which is a separate industrial establishment, engaged the workman afresh on January 15, 1999 upto May 31, 1999 and accordingly, workman worked in the office of District manager, HAFED, Hissar for 112 days. The Management, thus, set up a specific case that the workman worked at two different units of HAFED and the period of service rendered at these two places cannot be clubbed for the purposes of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The case of the Management was that the workman having not completed 240 days of continuous service, there was no necessity of compliance of Section 25-F of the ID act. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, hissar held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the ID act and, therefore, termination of service of the workman was bad in law. It directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. The said award has been affirmed by the High court.;