IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20105 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 11.05.2010 Veer Bhan ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sirsa and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.B.S.Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 06.10.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sirsa vide which the reference has been answered against the workman solely on the ground that he being a daily wager was not entitled to any benefit as his removal from service would fall under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Counsel for the petitioner contends that no finding has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sirsa with regard to the fact as to whether the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He contends that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of C.W.P.No.20105 of 2009 -2- Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, even if the the workman is not held entitled to reinstatement but still he would be entitled to compensation. He further contends that the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties have not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court to record any finding on the aspects which were raised before it. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the case be remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis. His further submission is that as per the claim statement of the petitioner, he was initially appointed on 1.8.1991 and continued upto 28.2.1994 when his services were terminated. Thereafter, he was appointed as Mali-cum- Chowkidar on 1.1.1998 and his services were illegally terminated on 25.5.1998. He contends that even if the complete period which is from 1.1.1998 to 25.5.1995 is taken into consideration but still the workman would not complete more than 240 days of service in the 12 preceding months as mandated under Section 25-B of the Act to assert that the provisions of Section 25-F have not been complied with. His further contention is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis and, therefore, his termination would be covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act. He, on this basis, submits that the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per the claim statement of the workman, he had only C.W.P.No.20105 of 2009 -3- worked from 1.8.1991 to 28.2.1994. Thereafter, he was appointed as Mali- cum-Chowkidar on 1.1.1998 and continued to work till 25.5.1998. This period is the relevant period for counting the days for which the workman had performed his duties with the respondent-Management. As per Section 25-B of the Act, he would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act if he had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Even if the entire period of his appointment i.e. from 1.1.1998 to 25.5.1998 is taken together, then also the said period would not reach the period of 240 days meaning thereby that no benefit under Section 25-F of the Act can be claimed by the petitioner-workman. Further, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act have not been complied with. This contention has neither been raised in the writ petition nor any evidence was produced before the Labour Court in support of this contention. Even in the claim statement, there is no mention of any person, who may be junior to the petitioner stated to have been retained or has been appointed after his termination. This, contention of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. May 11, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE