Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10522 & 10539 of 2014, involving common questions of facts and law. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No. 10522 of 2014 titled Dharminder v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & others. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award date 24.01.2014 whereby the Labour Court, Ambala has decided the reference against the workman and held that he was not entitled to any relief on the ground that there was no relationship of employer -employee between the petitioner and the respondent -Corporation and the petitioner -workman had only worked with the contractor on 2 years basis.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that in its demand notice filed under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), the claim of the workman was that he was appointed on 01.01.2007 as Gateman with the HAFED. His services were terminated on 10.06.2011 even though he had completed 240 days in one calendar year. No retrenchment compensation or one month's salary was paid nor one month's notice was given which was a mandatory requirement under the Act. Juniors had been retained in service and fresh appointments had been made even after retrenchment and thus, there was violation of 25 -G & 25 -H also. It was submitted that the workman was falsely shown working with the contractor only on papers. On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, it was specifically averred that the respondent - Management had given the contract of watch and ward personnel to: "(i) Perhari Security and Detective Services Ltd. Kapurthala, Punjab, (ii) Hawks International Security Services Ltd. Chandigarh, (iii) M/s. Gangotry Security Services Karnal & (iv) M/s. Narwal Super Security Shop No. 52 Tau Devi Lal Shopping Complex near Railway Road Panipat, since 01.04.2006." The workman had never been appointed by the respondent, as alleged and therefore, the question of terminating his services did not arise. The plea taken by the workman in his replication was that unfair labour practice had been done by showing the job of the worker through contracts/agencies which is against the statutory provisions. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties which included the statement of the petitioner -workman and WW2, Ramesh Kumar, who had brought the record, came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that there was relationship of employer -employee and in the absence of the said relationship, it was held that the workman was not entitled for reinstatement.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the workman had completed 240 days of service and therefore the provisions of the Act stood violated.;