- (1.) THE State of Punjab has challanged the award of the Labour Court dated February 4,1993 rendered in Reference No. 11/91 filed on February 18, 1991, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) SUKHDEV Singh son of Sadhu Singh, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'workman') was engaged on daily wage basis by the Horticulture Development Officer, Faridkot. The workman sought a reference from the appropriate Government to the Labour Court that his service were illegally terminated. The Horticulture Development Officer, Faridkot and the In-charge Government Garden and Nursery, Sarai Nagar, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, opposed the reference, interalia, pleading that the management/respondents to the reference was not an 'industry" within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. It was also pleaded that the workman was a casual worker and he was given employment keeping in view the exigency of work.
(3.) THE Labour Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues 1) Whether the reference is not maintainable as pleaded in legal objections taken in written statement? 2) Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? 3) Relief. Issue No. 1 was disposed of by the Labour Court with the observation that the management had failed to prove that the reference was not valid. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the workman worked for 239 days during twelve months preceding the date of his termination from services and he was not paid retrenchment compensation. In view of the answer to issue No. 2, the. . , Labour Court directed that the workman be reinstated with continuity of service and also with full back wages with effect from August 16,1990.;