- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of 14 writ petitions, details of the parties are given in Annexure 'A' which is appended with this judgment. However, for dictating the order, the facts have been taken from CWP No.5875 of 2012, titled Vinod Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat & another.
(2.) CHALLENGE has been laid to the award dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure P10), passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, whereby it came to a finding that the workman had failed to prove that there existed a relationship of master and servant between the workman and the management and also that the workman had not completed the continuous service of 240 days, during the last 12 preceding months, from the date of his alleged termination from service. Accordingly, the reference was decided against the workman and the award was passed.
(3.) THE workman, in his demand notice dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P1), filed under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), took the plea that he was appointed on 03.12.2001, on the post of Store Keeper, with monthly wages of Rs. 2600/ - per month and he worked upto 14.02.2005. On 15.02.2005, he gave a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, regarding his termination of service and the Deputy Labour Commissioner was asked to take action and the matter was taken to the Labour Court -cum -Conciliation Officer. The plea in the demand notice was that 240 days have been completed and therefore, the termination of service, without notice or compensation, was violative of Section 25 -F of the Act. It was further mentioned that vide earlier demand notice dated 13.09.2004, ten demands had been raised through the Non -teaching Karamchari Sangh, Haryana Union and the demands were pending and the removal was in grave violation of Section 33 -A of the Act. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The said demand notice was treated as claim petition and the written statement was filed by respondent No.2 -N.C. College of Engineering, Isarana, Panipat and a plea was taken that there was no relationship of master and servant between the applicant qua the answering respondent and the reference was not competent. During the conciliation proceedings, information was supplied that M/s Shiva Industrial Services was a licensed contractor and the workman was not reporting for duty with the said contractor. The establishment of the answering -respondent was duly registered under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and that the dispute regarding termination by the contractor against the College Management was not maintainable. On merits, the engagement by the College on 03.12.2001 or the facts that the workman was working as Store Keeper was denied and that no wages had been paid by it. It was further pleaded that the applicant had also submitted application to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, asking for abolition of contract system in college and that he was fully aware that he was working with the contractor and was not engaged by the respondent -Management. The factum of employment was, thus, totally denied as the workman had not worked with the respondent for 240 days. Accordingly, it was pleaded that there was no pendency of demand and there was no termination or violation of the provisions of Section 33 -A of the Act, as alleged.;