AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The workman has directed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.11.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 11612 of 1995) filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 18.1.1995 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, has been dismissed. Though there is a delay of 787 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 783-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the Award dated 18.1.1995.
In this case, the Labour Court, while declining the reference, had held that the appellant-workman did not work for 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, his termination could not be said to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Undisputedly, the appellant-workman had worked at Chandigarh Depot of the Punjab Roadways for 207 days and he had also worked at Batala Depot for some more days. The contention of the appellant was that if the services rendered by the workman at two different places are counted as a single service, then he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year. This contention of the appellant was rejected by the Labour Court while coming to the conclusion that the services rendered by him at Chandigarh and Batala are different, therefore, the same cannot be counted as a single service. The learned Single Judge has upheld the said finding, while relying upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal, , wherein it was held that the mere fact that controlling authority is the same person when the workman is employed in two different divisions cannot be counted as a single service. We do not find any illegality in the said order. No merit. Dismissed.