IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2388 of 2000 Date of Decision:- 10.02.2010 Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Anjali Khosla, Advocate for Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned Award dated 1.4.1997 (Annexure P-1) vide which reference has been answered against the workman holding the claim preferred by him to be belated. Counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court on the question of delay are not sustainable as the delay, if any, is merely for a period of three years which the petitioner- workman has been able to explain. She contends that after the termination of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner had on various occasions approached the respondents but he was not taken back in service. She contends that the petitioner-workman being an illiterate person, approached the Trade Union Council, Patiala, which helped him in drafting the demand notice, which he submitted leading to the reference of the same to the Labour Court. The delay is not inordinate and, therefore, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned Award cannot be C.W.P.No.2388 of 2000 -2- sustained. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the delay itself of more than three years defeats the claim of the petitioner-workman. She contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and do not call for any interference. Referring to the written statement filed by the respondents, she submits that there are three categories of Chowkidars working with the respondent- Department of Food and Supplies, Punjab, to safeguard the food grains stocks. The first category consists of regular chowkidars which is according to the sanctioned strength, drawing regular pay-scales. The second category belongs to temporary chowkidars who are recruited through the Employment Exchange and draw emoluments equal to the regular chowkidars and the third category belongs to daily wage chowkidars who draw fixed daily wages as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned from time to time. The services of the daily wage chowkidars end with each working day. Their strength increases or decreases with the increase and decrease of the food grains stock. The services of daily wage chowkidars are dispensed with as and when not required and accordingly, they are put in service as per the requirement. The petitioner belongs to the 3rd category of chowkidars who are daily wage chowkidars. He was engaged as daily wage chowkidar on 1.12.1986 with the respondent- Department and he worked as such with effect from 1.12.1986 to 25.7.1987 and from 1.9.1987 to 30.4.1988. On completion of his tenure with the respondent-Management, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with with effect from 1.5.1988 having been rendered surplus. Counsel C.W.P.No.2388 of 2000 -3- accordingly contends that the termination of the services of the petitioner was in consonance with Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), and as such, he would not be entitled to any benefit under the Act as the termination of his services would not amount to retrenchment. She further contends that the claim of the petitioner being without any basis, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the termination of services of the workman by the Management being neither justified nor in order as also that the claim of the workman was belated which would itself defeat the claim and the workman would not be entitled to any relief, cannot be sustained and is therefore, set aside in view of the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The interest of justice would be duly served if the case is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision. Consequently, the Award dated 1.4.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Bathinda for decision afresh. The parties would be at liberty to submit their pleadings afresh before the Labour Court and lead their respective evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Bathinda on 25.3.2010. February 10, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE