- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby the claim of the deceased-workman, now represented through his legal representatives, has been rejected.
(2.) The plea of the workman was that he had worked with the respondent-Punjab Mandi Board as an Auction Recorder from 26.04.1983 to 30.11.1983 and his services were terminated without any notice, enquiry, chargesheet nor any compensation was paid. He was getting Rs. 600/- per month at the time of termination of his service. It is also alleged that a person junior to him, namely, Harbans Singh was still working. The claim was opposed by filing written statement and a valid plea was raised that the industrial dispute was raised after 24 years and in the meantime, workman expired on 15.07.2007. A specific plea was also taken that the workman never worked continuously for 240 days and as such, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') was not applicable as he had been working as Auction Recorder in the purchase centre on the basis of seasonal arrangements. The wife of the deceased-workman, Gurnam Kaur appeared as WW1 and produced the seniority list (Mark-A) to show that Harbans Singh was junior to Balwinder Singh. Some representations had been made by her husband which were also produced as Mark-C to Mark-H. The respondent-Board examined MW1, Gurmeet Singh, Superintendent and placed reliance upon Exhibit M2 to show that vide advertisement, some posts of Auction Recorder were advertised which were to be filled on seasonal basis for 89 days. The said witness deposed that the deceased-workman was relieved from service on 30.11.1983 on the closure of purchase centre and he had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year. A finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had not completed 240 days as he had worked from 26.04.1983 to 30.11.1983 and therefore, the period as stipulated under Section 25-B of the Act was not completed. Accordingly, the reference was answered against the deceasedworkman/ legal heirs.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the case of the deceased-workman was very specific that a junior had been retained and therefore, the deceased-workman/legal heirs were entitled for the benefit.;