- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Labour Court, Hisar whereby, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was awarded to the petitioner -workman as compensation on account of having rendered 5 years of service. The claim in the present petition is that the said award be modified and the petitioner be reinstated in service.
(2.) PERUSAL of the paper book would go on to show that in the claim statement, the workman took the plea that he was employed on 27.05.1995 and worked upto 23.04.1996 as Chowkidar at Narwana Centre with the respondent -management Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. His services were transferred to Fatehabad and he worked from 24.04.1996 to 08.05.2001 and thereafter, he was not allowed to join duty from 09.05.2001 onwards and the said amounted to oral termination. He was drawing Rs. 2,440/ - per month as wages. His services were terminated and the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') had not been complied with as no charge sheet had been issued and no inquiry had been conducted. The juniors were retained in service after his termination and new persons were appointed without affording him opportunity of re -employment.
(3.) IN the written statement, the plea taken was that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year with the respondent -management and the work for round the clock security, watch and ward of the stock of wheat had been given on contract basis at Fatehabad through a private contractor under Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970. Specific plea was taken that he had worked only for 5 months (156 days) in the year 1996. In the subsequent years also i.e. in 1997, 1998 and 1999, he had never completed 240 days. In the year 2000, he had only worked for 31 days in January, 29 days in February and 31 days in March. The work was seasonal in nature and as soon as stocks of wheat were exhausted at the godowns, there was no further work and accordingly plea of reinstatement was resisted. Even replication was filed and the averments of the respondent -management regarding non -completion of 240 days were challenged on the ground that it was bogus and manipulated. The signatures of the workman were there on the gate pass which falsified the claim of the management and he had received wages till 08.05.2001. No attendance had been marked in the many months in the register to deprive the workman so that he could not show the completion of 240 days.;