Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Kalu Ram And Another on 14 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000) IIILLJ 24 P H
Author: S Sudhalkar
Bench: S Sudhalkar, M S Gill


JUDGMENT

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 24.11.1998, copy Annexure P9, vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e.

4.3.1995.

2. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that this writ petition is without any merit.

3. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a casual labourer on 1.4.1985. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 worked till September, 1990 and then left the job of his own. Thereafter respondent No. 1 was appointed in February, 1991 and he continued uplo31.12.1992. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that respondent No. 1 again left the job and his services were not terminated.

4. In para No. 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that in December, 1992 the work forwhich respondent No. 1 was engaged was completed and the respondent-workman was asked to work on other project at different place but he was reluctant to do that work and, thus, his services automatically came to an end. Reply to the claim statement has been filed and a copy thereof has been attached with his writ petition as Annexure P7. It has been stated therein that respondent No. 1 was engaged only to do day-to-day work and as soon as the work was over, his services were dispensed with under the instructions of the Engincer-in-Chief, Haryana. Therefore, it is obvious that the stand of the petitioner taken in the writ petition and the reply to the claim statement in the Labour Court are contradictory. It is not stated in the reply to the claim statement that re-spondent No. 1 was asked to go to some other place but he did not join. Even after the service of respondent No. I is considered after February, 1991, even then he had completed more than 240 days. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of contradictory stand taken in the writ petition as well as in the reply to the claim statement. We, therefore, accept theclaim of respondentNo. 1 that his services were terminated and find no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labout Court, Gurgaon.

In the light of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

17 queries in 0.149 seconds.