EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PANCHAYAT RAJASANSI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER
LAWS(P&H)-2008-12-226
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 09,2008

EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PANCHAYAT RAJASANSI Appellant
VERSUS
Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P3) vide which the claim of respondent No. 2-Workman has been allowed directing his reinstatement on his old job with continuity of service but without back-wages.
(2.) It is the submission of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 workman was appointed on daily wages on work charge basis. After completion of the work, the further work charge contract of respondent No. 2 was not continued and his tenure of service came to an end with effect from 31.8.2001. Respondent No. 2 raised a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 4.6.2002 and when the reconciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court.
(3.) The claim made by the Workman before the Labour Court was that he has been working continuously as Peon with the Management for 2 years at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. He alleged that his services were terminated illegally on 31.8.2001 without any notice, charge-sheet or enquiry. He further contended that he was neither offered nor paid any pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation. The basic stand which has been taken by respondent No. 2-Workman was that juniors to him were retained in service and in fact after his termination from service, fresh persons have been employed. The said claim was contested by the petitioners taking a stand that the workman had not worked with the Management for the last two years as alleged. He was engaged on workcharge basis and as per Government instructions since the work allotted to him under the contract had come to an end, his services were no more required and, therefore, with the termination of his contract period, he was not required to continue in service. It was specifically stated in the reply that there was no termination or retrenchment in view of completion of the period of engagement and, therefore, there was no requirement of service of notice to the respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.