CWP No.17093 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17093 of 2005 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Sito Devi ...Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. --- Mahesh Grover, J . (Oral) The petitioner has impugned the award dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Labour Court. He claimed reference before the Labour Court to the following effect:- “ Whether the termination of the services of workman Seeto Devi is valid and justified? If so to what relief including back wages is she entitled?” The petitioner pleaded that she was employed on daily wages as a Mali with the management from 1991 and her services were terminated on 11.4.1998, without any reason. She pleaded that she had completed 240 CWP No.17093 of 2005 2 days in the last 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of her services. Her services have been terminated without compliance of Section 25 (G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act); hence impugned order of termination deserves to be set aside and she was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of services and back wages. The respondents contested the claim and pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as they were not an industry within the definition of Section 2 (J) of the Act. They pleaded that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage as per requirement of the work from time to time and she was not appointed on regular basis. The learned Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had worked for 262 days in the last 12 months immediately preceding the date of her termination. However, the learned Tribunal found, from the record that the respondent department was not an industry and thus declined the reference. Aggrieved by the same instant petition has been filed. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that the case was shown in the list. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is serious dispute regarding the question as to whether the workman had completed 240 days or not. He contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 28.02.1998 but according to the petitioner her services were terminated in April, 1998 and if this period is to be reckoned, then question of 240 days would have to be construed from April, 1997 till March, 1998, It was further contended that if this period is to be taken into CWP No.17093 of 2005 3 consideration the petitioner does not complete 240 days. It was lastly contended that in case the case of the respondents is that the petitioner had abandoned her services. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal respondent not being industry is not correct and to decline the claim of the petitioner is erroneous. However, if other factors are to be seen, then a finding has been recorded that the petitioner has completed 262 days. Such a finding is a finding of fact in which this court does not ordinarily interfere in writ jurisdiction and more so, when the respondents have not questioned this. Accordingly this question is determined in favour of the petitioner. However, as per her own showing the petitioner was merely employed on daily wages and being so she could not claim any right to persist with the employment. In this regard I find support from the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2010 (1) SCT 143. In the given set of circumstances, the petitioner having worked with the respondents for a sufficiently long time on daily wages she certainly is entitled to some compensation. The impugned award is, therefore, modified and the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum. Petition stands disposed of. (Mahesh Grover) 21.03.2011 Judge rp