- (1.) Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 9.2.2000, Annexure P-10 whereby the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief.
(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Writ Petition are as follows :- The petitioner was appointed in the Municipal Corporation, Civil Faridabad on daily wages. His services were abruptly terminated on 10.12.1994 without compliance of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act). No notice/notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him prior to the termination of his services. He challenged his illegal termination by serving a demand notice on the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad under Section 2-A of the Act on 31.1.1995. As no conciliation proceedings could mature, therefore the Government of Haryana referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad for adjudication:- "Whether the termination of Shri Dharam Pal is justified or not ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to" ? Ultimately, award was passed on 9.2.2000. The petitioner has termed the award as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice on the grounds that he has completed 240 days of service and the management had failed to rebut the same by producing reliable and convincing evidence; that the Presiding Officer illegally and arbitrarily took on record of this case, the proceedings and evidence of another file without providing any opportunity to him; that the Presiding Officer also allowed the management to place on record written statement of another file without granting any opportunity to him that the Presiding Officer, respondent No. 1 has illegally noted the pleadings of respondent No. 2, from the written statement filed in Reference No. 117 of 1995; that the Presiding Officer has wrongly relied upon muster rolls, Exhibits M-1 to M-13 brought on record from another file for calculating the working days; that the Presiding Officer has incorrectly calculated the total working days as 229, that the petitioner has also worked upto 10.12.1994 and these days were required to be added to the total of 236 days which makes total of 246 days and that the respondent No. 1 allowed additional evidence of the petitioner but hurriedly pronounced the award.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was engaged/kept as Beldar in the month of January, 1994 and had worked for 205 days during January, 1994 to November, 1994. He has not worked for 240 days in the calendar year of 1994. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 2 is a civic body and had to engage workmen for specific work/emergent work for specific period and after completion of work, such workmen are removed and the same is the case of the petitioner who had worked for 87 days during 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1994 and 118 days from the month of July, 1994 to November,1994 and was thereafter dis- allowed.;