S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Award dated July 20, 1999, published on February 14, 2000, given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court).
(2.) It was pleaded by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman) before the Labour Court that he had worked with respondent No. 3 on daily wages from December 1990 to June 1991 and from October 1991 to December 1992. In the months of July to September 1991, he had worked with respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded that respondents No. 2 and 3 are under the administrative control of respondent No. 1. Before the Labour Court, respondent No. 1 was the Chief Superintendent, Government Live Stock Farm, Hisar, respondent No. 2 was the Sector Superintendent-I, Government Live Stock Farm, Sector-I, Hisar and respondent No. 3 was the Deputy Director, Sheep Breeding Farm, Sirsa Road, Hisar. Since both the employers were under the administrative control of Chief Superintendent, Government i Live Stock Farm, the workman claimed that all the period of work have to be clubbed together to calculate the number of days he actually worked. According to the workman, his services were terminated on December 31, 1991 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in afterreferred to as the Act). He, therefore, served a demand notice on the basis of which the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(l)(c) of the Act. The reference dated May 22, 1997 reads as under: "Whether the termination of the service of Surender is justified and in order? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?" Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed separate written statements before the Labour Court. It was stated that they have nothing to do with labourers or daily wagers of each other. They engaged their own separate labourers on daily wages on their respective Muster Rolls as per availability of the daily wages and as per availability of the work at the site. Therefore, it was stated that workman used to come to the work and used to leave the job on his own. There was no question of his transfer from one respondent to the other. He had worked for only 199 days during the period from December 1990 to January 1992 with respondent No. 3 and only 78 days during the intervening period from July 1991 to September 1991 with respondent No. 2. After completion of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether termination of the service of Surender is justified and in order? If not, to what relief he is entitled to? 2. Whether respondents concern is not Industry? 3. Whether services of workman Surender with the two respondents is not clubbable? 4. Relief."
(3.) The Labour Court has decided issues No. 1 and 3 together. After noticing the evidence, it has been observed as follows: "Simply because two respondents are under the administrative control of respondent No. 1, it (sic) is not at all sufficient to prove that his service with the two respondents, is clubbable. The two respondents may be getting sanction for engaging their labourers from respondent No. 1, but the sanction, if any, was not joint nor in the name of particular daily wagers. Admittedly, there is also no written order of the transfer to Surender from one respondent to the other. Therefore, services of Surender with the two respondents would be deemed to be quite different, distinct and not clubbable";