Civil Writ Petition No. 3913 of 2012 (O&M). Case: District Red Cross Society Vs Presiding Officer. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Petition No. 3913 of 2012 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.K. Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: J.S. Cooner, Adv. |
| Judges | Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. |
| Issue | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(oo)(bb), 25F |
| Citation | 2014 (143) FLR 138, 2014 (3) PLR 406 |
| Judgement Date | April 07, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
-
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 17.08.2011 (Annexure P4) whereby the Labour Court, Ambala has decided the reference in favour of the workman and directed that he be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Respondent-workman, who is a physically handicapped person and a Graduate, was appointed as a helping Clerk with the petitioner-Society on 15.11.2002 and he was drawing Rs. 2500/- per month when his services were dispensed with on 17.02.2008. Accordingly, he raised an industrial dispute pleading that his services have been dispensed with, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') and that he had been discriminated against. The petitioner-Society raised the defence of Section 2(oo)(bb) and also took the plea that the Society was not an industry. It was submitted that the contract was for 89 days and that he had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year.
-
The Labour Court, after examining the statement of the parties, including the workman, came to the conclusion that the workman had put in 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year and there was no evidence regarding the contractual appointment, from time to time and his services were dispensed with on 17.02.2008, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
-
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the award was not justified and the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) would thus, come into play.
-
The Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the appointment was of 89 days but he continued to work till his services was dispensed with. Accordingly, it has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman continued to work beyond the contractual appointment and once having completed 240 days, he was entitled to be given the protection under Section 25-F of the Act There is no denying the fact that the procedure prescribed of issuing notice and notice regarding pay and compensation was not paid. Accordingly, no fault can be found in the well reasoned judgment passed by the Labour Court which could warrant interference. The argument that the appointment was de hors the rules and without proper, procedure and the petitioner, is not industry is only to be rejected because the judgment in The Indian Red Cross Society...
To continue reading
Request your trial