Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1831 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Bhagwati Widow Of Lal Chand

2007-10-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment 1. The State-Management challenges the award of back wages in favour of the deceased-workman. 2. The case of the workman was that he worked as a Mali-cum- Chowkidar from 1.11.86 to 31.10.87. Termination of the service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act). 3. The management contested the claim on the ground that the appointment of the workman was only for a specific work. The Labour Court held that since the workman had worked for more than 240 days, termination of the service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, he was entitled to back wages. The workman had already died. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of service of the workman was on 1.11.87. he raised the dispute for the first time on 29.10.1994. In these circumstances, reference was not justified. He further submits that being daily wager termination of service of the workman was in accordance with the contract of employment and was covered by Sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. It is further submitted that employment under the State being public employment, the same has to be according to rules and regulations and after following the procedure which has not been done in the present case. Reliance has been placed on Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopi Nath Sharma, (2006)6 SCC 221, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, (1997)4 SCC 391, 1997(2) SLR 570 (SC], State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007)1 SCC 575 : [2007(2) SLR 74 (SC], State of M.P. and others v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others, (2006)8 SCC 67 : [2006(5) SLR 834 (SC], M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and another v. S.C. Pandey, (2006)2 SCC 716, M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006)2 SCC 702 : [2006(7) SLR 316 (SC], U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, 2007(5) SCC 755 : [2007(3) SLR 589 (SC]. 5. The above submission has merit in view of law laid down in the judgments relied upon. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. Petition allowed.