- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.14524 & 14223 of 2011, involving common questions of facts and law. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No.14524 titled Ram Niwas Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others.
(2.) THE petitioner -workman is aggrieved against the award dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure P8) whereby the Labour Court, Ambala dismissed the reference filed by him on the ground that the appointment was not on regular basis, even though the workman had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months.
(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the claim of the workman was that he was appointed in June, 2000 on daily wage basis and his services were dispensed with on 30.11.2003. The workman was drawing salary of Rs. 2621/ - per month and therefore, the claim was agitated on the ground that he completed more than 240 days in one calendar year and the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') regarding giving notice, notice pay, chargesheet, retrenchment compensation, had not been complied with. Juniors were retained after his termination and fresh appointments had been made, without intimating the workman. In the written statement, filed by the respondent -Corporation, the plea taken was that no appointment letter was issued to the daily wagers who were working as Security Guards and they were engaged on the basis of daily wages as Security Guards on contract basis and the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act would be attracted.;