Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jage Ram vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 18 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038714
245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-20717-2016
DECIDED ON:18.03.2024
JAGE RAM .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the petitioner.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner - Jage Ram (workman) has filed present writ
petition by assailing the award dated 14.01.2015, (Annexure P-9), passed
by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby
reference No.155 of 2010, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, has been answered against the petitioner - workman.
2. As per the demand notice dated 11.05.2010 and the claim
statement, pleaded case of the workman is that he was appointed as a
Mason, on daily wage basis by the respondent - Management, on
21.10.1992. On 22.08.1994, Management terminated his services
illegally, but later on, workman was reinstated, in pursuance of the award
dated 28.05.2008 passed by learned Labour Court, Rohtak.
3. Again, on 20.02.2010, services of the workman were
terminated, whereas, he had completed more than 240 working days in a
calendar year. Therefore, said termination is in violation of Section 25-F
of the Act. It has also been alleged that principles of law have not been
followed and thus, there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-G
and 25-H of the Act.
4. There being a specific stand on behalf of the respondent -
Management that workman has not been terminated from service, rather,
authenticity of this order/judgment
he is still in job and said fact has been admitted by the workman in his
testimony also, while appearing as WW-1, learned Tribunal concluded
that factum of continuing in service is borne out of the attendance register
Ex.MW-1 to Ex.MW-12, which pertains to the period from February,
2011 till July, 2014.
5. Thus, learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court found
that second time, there is no termination of workman from service but
has merely paid him off and lastly, it was held that workman is not
entitled for any relief.
6. Assailing the said award, present writ petition is pending
since the year 2016, but without explaining as to on what account,
workman is feeling aggrieved once the stand of the Management and
finding thereon, is that the workman has never been terminated from
service.
7. To explain the aforesaid circumstances and to assist the
Court, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, present writ petition stands dismissed for want of
prosecution.
9. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an
appropriate application for seeking revival of the present writ petition
with the prepration to argue the matter, within eight weeks from today,
incase, any substantive issue still exists along with a cause of action to
the petitioner.
10. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at
the address of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
18.03.2024 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
