VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition is directed against the impugned award dated 12. 5. 2004 (Annex. P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of the services w. e. f. 31. 3. 1991 before the Conciliation Officer. THE Conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. THE appropriate Government vide its Notification dated 27. 5. 2003 referred the matter to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. On the reference, notices were issued to the parties and the respondent workman submitted claim petition alleging inter alia that he was appointed on the post of Meter Reader by verbal order dated 3. 1. 1987 and he worked till 31. 3. 1991, on which date his services is terminated by verbal order without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1947' ). Reply to the claim petition was filed by the petitioner alleging inter alia that the respondent workman was given appointment on daily wages basis for fixed term and his services automatically came to an end on expiry of the term. It was also alleged that respondent workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to get any relief. After recording evidence, the learned Labour Court vide judgment dated 12. 5. 2004 (Annex. P/1) allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages. Hence, the instant writ petition.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In the instant petition the main contention of the petitioner Municipal Board is that the respondent workman was appointed on daily wages basis for a fixed term and his services automatically came to an end on expiry of the aforesaid term, thus, provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable in this case. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court regarding completion of 240 days in based on conjuncture and surmises. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- workman has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court and stated that same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ;