- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice challenging his termination. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government. Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he had been appointed on daily wage basis as a class-IV employee by the respondent management on 28.8.2000 and his services were terminated on 10.4.2003 in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). Respondent-management in its written statement averred that the petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis in October 2000 for supervision of development project being carried out by the Municipal Council on D.C. Rates and had worked upto March 2003. Petitioner was relieved from his duties as the project against which he was engaged, was completed.
(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal:- "1. Whether the services of workman are covered u/s 2(oo) (bb) of the Act ? 2. Whether the termination of services of the workman is justified and in order ? 3. Relief."
(3.) Learned Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned award dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the reference sought by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitionerworkman. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Petitioner while appearing in the witness box as WW-1 has deposed as per the contents of his claim petition. Respondent management examined RW-1 Umesh Aggarwal. The said witness in his examination-in-chief deposed that the petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis in October 2000 for supervision of development works being carried out by the Municipal Council on D.C. approved rates and had worked upto March 2003. Petitioner had been engaged for specific work and for specific period. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the case. No notice was issued to the petitioner nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of termination of his services. Work was got done from the petitioner against the sanctioned project work. The said project work was still going on since March 2003 till date. He further deposed that the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed, was still lying vacant. No appointment letter had been issued to the petitioner at the time of his employment.;