Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1481 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Mandhu Ram

2000-12-05

MEHTAB S.GILL, S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
Judgment S. S. SUDHALKAR and j. JJ. 1. By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the ex parte award of the Labour court, dated June 7,1995 (copy Annexure P4) and also order dated April 26, 1999 (copy Annexure p6) vide which the Labour Court declined the request for setting aside ex parte award. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court has gone on technicalities and has erred in holding that it could not set aside the ex parte award after completion of 30 days of the publication of the award. He has cited the case of Satnam verma V/s. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 294 : 1984 Supp SCC 712 : 1985-I-LLJ-79 in support of his contention. However, the award (Annexure P4) shows that the labour Court has upheld the version of respondent No.1 that he was appointed as a Beldar on November 5, 1992 and his services were terminated on June 1, 1994 without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. His services were terminated without due compliance of Sec.25-F of the Industrial disputes Act. 4. We, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show as to how the writ petitioner intends to challenge this finding of the Labour Court. He has drawn our attention to Para.5 of the writ petition. However, Para.5 of the writ petition does not show how the petitioner is challenging the finding of the Labour Court. Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is reproduced as under: "5. That respondent No.2 vide his ex parte award, dated June 7, 1995 (copy attached as Annexure P4) held that as none for management appeared on April 25, 1995 for filing of claim statement, therefore, the management is proceeded ex parte. It was further held that the workman had served the respondent department for more than 240 days of service during calendar year and his services were terminated without compliance of Sec.25-F of Industrial disputes Act, hence retrenchment is illegal and therefore, workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. " 5. It was further held that the workman had served the respondent department for more than 240 days of service during calendar year and his services were terminated without compliance of Sec.25-F of Industrial disputes Act, hence retrenchment is illegal and therefore, workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. " 5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to para.8 (iii) of the writ petition, which is reproduced below: "8 (iii) That respondent No.1 was employed on daily-wages as beldar on November 5, 1992 and he worked up to May 31, 1994. He was engaged as unskilled labourer only purely on daily-wages on muster-roll against a particular work on completion of which his services no longer required, whether any post sanctioned or unsanctioned. " 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the work for which respondent No.1 was engaged is now over and therefore, he could not be continued. He has also relied on Para.1 of Annexure P3 which is reply to the demand notice, Paragraph 1 of the reply is reproduced as under: "the contents of Para No.1 are wrong and denied. The applicant was engaged as casual labour on temporary muster-roll on daily-wages against a specific work in a specific work period. " 7. The petitioner is having the finding of the Labour Court against him. The petitioner should have come forward (sic) to state the respondent No.1 was employed on a particular work which is now not available. Instead, it has taken a vague plea in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he is not required to show in the written statement the complete particulars of the work. Be that as it may, we do not comment on the said argument. However, in the writ petition, when the petitioner has come to challenge the award also, it should have been specific in mentioning the work for which respondent no.1 was engaged. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to show even prima facie that the finding of the Labour court deserves any interference even by way of setting aside the ex parte award. 9. As a result, the writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.