- (1.) The challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the award dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure P1) passed by the Labour Court, Hissar, whereby the reference has been decided against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and his services were terminated on 14.9.2006 and he had worked for over five years since he was employed as a Sweeper on 1.3.2001. It is, accordingly, submitted that since the mandatory provisions have been openly violated, the Labour Court was not justified in declining the reference.
(2.) Perusal of the award in question would go on to show that the petitioner was working as a Sweeper on part-time basis in the Government High School, Pataudi under the control of the Headmaster. The workman had appeared before the Labour Court as WW.1 and Sumer Singh, the then Head Teacher, had appeared as WW.2, whereas the Management examined Peer Chand, J.B.T. Teacher as MW.1. On the application of the petitioner, direction was issued and the record was produced by Sukhvir Singh, Drawing Teacher, which shows that the petitioner had joined on 1.5.2001 and worked upto 28.2.2006 and his services were terminated on 12.10.2006 by the Headmaster of the School w.e.f. 1.3.2006. The Labour Court also noticed that various show cause notices were issued to the petitioner from March, 2006 to September, 2006 (Annexures R1 to R11) and recorded a finding that there was a complaint of misconduct against the petitioner as he was not cleaning the rooms and toilets of the school and rather when he was asked to do so, he was extending threats to the Head Teacher. The Headmaster, on the said complaint, had also inspected the school premises and fond that it was not properly cleaned and there was also absence of the petitioner on 8.3.2006. A complaint was also forwarded by Smt. Munni Devi that she had heard the petitioner talking to the other persons and gathered from their conversation that they wanted to mix some poison in the mid day meal of the students but they could not succeed. A letter was also written to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Tosham (Ex.R9) and to the District Primary Education Officer, Bhiwani (Annexure R10) regarding the misconduct of the petitioner and accordingly, his services were thereafter terminated.
(3.) The Labour court has held that though an enquiry had not been conducted but since he was not a regular employee and his explanation was called for and he was not coming forward and therefore, his termination was ordered by way of punishment and would not fall within the definition of retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") and thus, he is not entitled for the benefits.;