IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7543 of 2009 . Date of Decision : May 27, 2009. Bije Singh son of Shri Ram Sarup, resident of V.P.O. Chiriya, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman on the ground that since the petitioner-workman is a daily wager and his appointment has not been made in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service, he does not have the right to hold the post, and that since the workman was a daily wager, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no findings have been recorded by the Labour Court with regard to period for which the petitioner- workman had worked with the respondent-Management nor has it been C.W.P. No. 7543 of 2009. decided by the Labour Court with regard to assertion of the petitioner- workman that he had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He contends that the award, therefore, cannot be sustained as even if the appointment of the petitioner- workman was on daily wage basis but in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, the petitioner-workman would be entitled to compensation if it is held that the petitioner-workman had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated by the respondent-Management. Counsel for the respondent-Management on the other hand supports the award contending that the said award is passed relying upon the judgments of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and the contentions raised by counsel for the parties.. I am of the opinion that the award does not sustain. The proceedings before the Court, which has the original jurisdiction and the pleadings and evidence led by the parties needs framing of issues, which ultimately have to be decided by the Labour Court, taking into consideration the facts as pleaded and proved before the Court, which mandates findings on the issues based on such pleadings and evidence. Those findings become the basis for determining the rights of the parties. The basic requirement, therefore, of the original court exercising its jurisdiction, is to determine the facts by giving its findings on the issues. The basic contention, therefore, as raised by counsel for the petitioner in the -2- C.W.P. No. 7543 of 2009. present writ petition having not been looked into nor any finding has been recorded by the Labour Court, the award cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in the light of the above observations in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar, on 09.07.2009. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 27, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -3-