AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Jain, J.—Award of the respondent has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that Udyog Sahayak is not an industry and it was only a Committee. The appropriate Government made following reference for adjudication before the Labour Court:
"Whether the service of Sh. Kiran Pal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief he is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
After discussing the evidence in detail, the labour court returned the finding that the workman was engaged for a continuous period. In para 21 of the impugned award, it has been held that the record which would have shown as to whether there was any break in the services of the workman, was not produced before the Labour Court by the petitioner and that would have been the best evidence to determine as to whether the workman was a casual worker or the workman was appointed on a regular basis. Although in the appointment letter the word has been used as ''appointment as a casual worker''. The workman admittedly worked from February, 1998 till November, 1999. That being the position a daily wage worker who had worked for more than 240 days in a year, has to be regarded as a workman and is entitled to the protection of Industrial Disputes Act. That means that if the services of such a workman is to be terminated then the provisions of Section 25(f) have to be complied with. As the provisions of Section 25(f) have not been complied with, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned award.
I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not an industry or the workman was not amenable to have protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. I have perused the Labour Court Record. No such plea was taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court.
Dismissed. CM 7975/2002 also stands dismissed.