The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the principles related to termination of contractual employees and the renewal of their contracts were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Jaswant Singh, J. - The appellants, four (4) in number, have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, who has disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the writ petitioners to avail their alternative remedy of applying for a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants were working as Data Entry Operators in the office of Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhiaran (for short HSVP) since 2018 and 2019 and their services have been wrongly dispensed with by ignoring the principle of "Last come first go" as a few of their juniors are still working in the department. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 170 of 2010 titled as "Indian Hardware Industries Vs Presiding Officers" as also passed in CWP No. 15454 of 2012 titled as "Farzand Ali Vs State of Punjab".

2.1 It is further argued that learned Single Judge has wrongly relegated them under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as they do not come within the definition of "workmen". Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1997 titled as "MGT Som Vihar Apt. Owerns Housing and Maintenance Society Ltd Vs Workmen C/o Indian Engg. Genl. Mazdoor", 2002(9) SCC 652, whereby it has been held that housing sectors are not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and have also scrutinized the paper book. According to us following two issues arise for our consideration:

1. WHETHER ORDER PASSED BY LD. SINGLE JUDGE RELEGATING THEM TO ALTERNATIVE REMEDY UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 WAS CORRECT?

2. RIGHT OF CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES LIKE APPELLANTS TO SEEK CONTINUATION OFTHEIR SERVICES:

ISSUE No. 1.

4. The concept of workman is central to the concept of an industrial dispute as an industrial dispute can be raised either by a "workman" or an "employer." Since the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act") is a piece of beneficial legislation, the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman." Section 2(s) defines workman as any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, for hire or reward, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages of more than Rs. 6500.

4.1 The basic purpose of statute is to settle all the disputes that arise amongst the parties in an expeditious manner after taking in evidence from both the sides. Further, the proceedings being summary in nature, rigors of Evidence Act are not as strictly applicable as they are applicable to a civil suit. Still further, proceedings under the ID Act, 1947 culminate into an award at a much faster pace as compared to civil suits filed for similar claims. Thus, any person who falls within the definition of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 and is working in an Industry as defined under Section 2(j) of ID Act, 1947 must be relegated to their alternative efficacious remedies.

4.2 In the instant case, it is seen that learned Single Judge has relegated the appellants under the ID Act, 1947 which has been opposed by them before us only on the ground of not being covered under the definition of "workmen" by relying upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in MGT Som Vihars case (supra). A bare perusal of the Judgment shows that the issue involved in the said case and the issue raised in the present case are completely different. The