CWP No.8804 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8804 of 2010 Date of decision:23.09.2011 Sadhu ..... Petitioner Versus Divisional Forest Officer, Hisar and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the award dated 28.08.2008, Annexure P-3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's termination is clearly illegal. The petitioner served the department from 01.03.1991 upto 31.12.2001 and completed 240 days, in the year preceding his termination. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') does not apply to the facts of this case. It is further submitted that as the respondents admit that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager and worked as such, it is prima facie established that the petitioner was working regularly. It is also argued that reliance by the Labour Court upon the judgment in Secretary of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi and others, 2006 RSJ 572, is CWP No.8804 of 2010 -2- misplaced as the principle of law decided in Uma Devi's case (supra) does not apply to cases under the Act. It is further argued that the respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the petitioner's appointment was de hors the rules or that he is a back door entry but the Labour Court has held that the petitioner's appointment is de hors the rules. Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the petitioner is a daily-wager, the mere fact that he has been working with the respondent No.1 since 01.03.1991 does not raise an inference that the petitioner is a regular employee, or has worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days. It is argued that as the petitioner was engaged as a daily-wager, without following the procedure for appointment, the Labour Court has rightly decided the reference against the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and have no hesitation in holding that the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar, has erred while rejecting the reference. The Labour Court has failed to peruse the pleadings, consider the issues in hand or appraise the evidence on record. The workman filed a petition, claiming that his termination is illegal as he has worked, with the respondent-department, from 01.01.1991 to 31.12.2001. The respondents raised pleas that the Forest Department is not an industry CWP No.8804 of 2010 -3- as the work is seasonal, the petitioner has not completed 240 days and that the reference is time barred. The written statement does not disclose any averment that the petitioner was a contractual worker or that his employment was de hors the rules or that he was not employed against a sanctioned post. The issues framed by the Labour Court read as follows: - “1. As per terms of reference ? 2. Whether the claim petition suffers from delay and laches ? 3. Whether the Respondent Department is not an 'Industry' ? 4. Relief.” Pleadings are the foundation of a lis and a court cannot travel beyond the pleaded case. Despite the absence of pleading or any issue that the workman is a contractual employee or that his employment is de hors the rules and not against a sanctioned post, the Labour Court has rejected the reference by holding that the petitioner is a contractual employee, and his appointment is de hors the rules. Apart from these fatal flaws, the Labour Court has not recorded any finding whether the petitioner completed 240 days of service in the year preceding his termination. In view of these errors of jurisdiction, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned award dated 28.08.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, to decide the reference afresh and in accordance with law. CWP No.8804 of 2010 -4- Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar, on 23.11.2011. 23.09.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE