- (1.) The petitioner impugns the award dated 18.5.2011. A reference with the following question was claimed by the respondent-workman:- Whether termination of services or workman, Sh. Inderjit is justified and in order? If not so, to what relief is he entitled? He alleged that he has been working with the petitioner - Municipal Council Raman, District Bathinda as a tractor driver since 1.11.99 and his services were terminated on 31.12.2001 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act in particular Section 25 F.In response to the claim set up by the respondent-workman, the petitioner averred that the workman was appointed for a specific period on daily wages as per the prevalent DC rates and since the work was no longer in existence his service were no longer required. Accordingly, the petitioner took shelter of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The respondent-workman was able to establish before the Tribunal that he had completed more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of his alleged termination. He also succeeded in establishing that provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with Consequently, on appreciation of the material before it, learned Tribunal concluded that the respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement but without back-wages.
(3.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, instant writ petition has been filed wherein learned counsel for the petitioner has more or less reiterated the stand of the Municipal Council taken before the Industrial Tribunal that since the respondent-workman was employed for a specific period his services were no longer required upon the extinguishment of the said period.;