- (1.) AWARD (Annexure P4) dated April 19, 1994 has been challenged by the petitioner (workman) in this petition. He has prayed for quashing of the award and for issue of a direction to respondent No. 2 to reinstate him with full back wages.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed in the service of the Haryana Handloom Weavers Apex Co-op. Society Limited (for short, "respondent-society') for a period of 89 days in the first instance vide order dated June 29, 1984. On expiry of the period of 89 days, his service was terminated but he was re-employed on similar terms and conditions. The process of re-employment and termination of service continued till June 24, 1987 when his service was finally discontinued. The petitioner raised a dispute against the termination of his service by alleging that his service was retrenched without compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 25f of the Industrial Dispsutes Act 1947 (for short, 'the Act ). He also pleaded violation of Section 25g of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice. Conciliation proceedings were initiated at the instance of the petitioner but the parties failed to arrive at a settlement. Consequently the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government and on a consideration of the failure report, the Government referred the dispute under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workman reiterated his plea that termination of his service was contrary to Sections 25f and 25g of the Act. He specifically pleaded that though he had worked for a period of 240 days, notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation were not given to him. He further stated that two workmen, namely, Ranbir and Sashi, who were employed after him, were still working. He also stated that during the course of employment, he was allotted P. F. No. 5973/59 and was called upon to furnish security of a suni of Rs. 25,000/ -. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the workman by asserting that the provisions of the Act are not applicable and in any case the workman's case was covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 further pleaded that petitioner was employed as a Salesman on purely temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days and his services were likely to be terminated at any time without any notice. His service was terminated at the end of the period stipulated in the order of appointment but on his request, the management of the society again employed him. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 550/ -. A prayer was also made to allow the society to lead evidence to prove the charge of embezzlement. In support to his case, the workman examined himself and respondent No. 2 examined one Sahib Ram as its witness. After considering the rival cases, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has passed the impugned award-It has held that case of the petitioner is covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) MS. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is perverse and suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it. She argued that the Labour Court has not looked into the evidence produced before it, and has altogether ignored the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and also that the action of the employer was not bona fide.;