Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE State of Haryana has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak dated 12.3.2004. The Respondent/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act to the following effect: Whether termination of services of Shri Anil Kumar is justified or not, to what relief he is entitled to?
(2.) THE Respondent/workman had raised a demand on 19.9.2000 and alleged that he was appointed as a Water Carrier in the office of S.D.E.O.,Bhiwani on 23.12.1996 and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, his services were terminated on 31.3.2000 verbally and without assigning any reason. He pleaded that he was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and his termination was illegal without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. He further pleaded that since persons juniors to him have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. The Petitioner/management pleaded that the Respondent was appointed only as a Part -Time Water Carrier only for 1 -1/2 hours per day. He was appointed only for 10 months in a year. After this period he was free to do any other work. The Petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the Respondent was not a workman. It was also pleaded that the Respondent had not completed 240 days of service.
(3.) THE Tribunal concluded that the Respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It was further held that Petitioner is an industry under the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the Respondent/workman along with 50% of the back wages from the date of demand notice.;