Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramu vs P O L C Panipat & Anr on 19 March, 2024
CWP-2362-1998 (O&M) 1 2024: PHHC:039583 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2362-1998 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 19.03.2024 RAMU 2, acne PETITIONER VERSUS POLC PANIPAT&ANR. aaa RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Additional A.G. Haryana. SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner -- Ramu (being workman) has filed present writ petition for quashing of the award dated 16.01.1997, passed by Labour Court, Panipat, (learned Tribunal), whereby reference No.161 of 1996, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been answered against him.
2. Petitioner - workman pleaded before learned Tribunal that he was engaged as Chowkidar/Beldar on 01.07.1994, on payment of wages @ Rs.1352/- per month. He worked uptill 01.01.1996 and thereupon, his services were terminated, without assigning any reason and following due procedure of law. Thus, there is a complete violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. In the written statement filed by respondent No.2 -- Executive Engineer, Water Supply Division, Binjhol, (Panipat) (being Management), it is pleaded that an agreement was arrived at, in between the State of Haryana and M/s Indian Oil Corporation, (Bohali Refinery LAVISHA 2024.03.20 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-2362-1998 (O&M) 2 2024: PHHC: 039583 project), to dig a water channel from Munak to the site of Refinery i.e. at Bohali. The Irrigation Department completed that project on 31.12.1995, and after completion, assignment of the work was over, for which entire expenses were borne by the Indian Oil Corporation. Thus, for a specific project, i.e. digging of watercourse, work was initiated and after digging of the water channel, same was over.
4. Taking into consideration the entire material available on record, learned Labour Court concluded that workman-Ramu was engaged for a specific purpose/project i.e. digging of water channel from Munak to the site of Oil Refinery and on completion of the project, his services automatically stood terminated. Otherwise also, as per pleaded case of the petitioner-workman, he worked from 01.07.1994 to 31.12.1995, and industrial dispute was raised in the year 1996, which has been finally decided by learned Labour Court on 16.01.1997.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by learned Labour Court and therefore, same does not call for any interference.
6. Thus, this Court is of the view that with the efflux of time, in all eventuality, nothing material survives to be adjudicated, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, without there being any substantial ground to interfere in the findings recorded by learned Labour Court, and the reasons recorded here above, present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) 19.03.2024 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned _ Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2024.03.20 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh