IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 Decided on : 12.05.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR ..PETITIONER Versus PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM- LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Yesh Paul Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 19.04.1996 (Annexure P-3) by which, the claim of the petitioner that his services were terminated by the respondent-department in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to the

1947 Act) has been rejected.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman argues that the petitioner-workman was appointed by the respondent-department on 07.03.1988 as a Laboratory Attendant on daily wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further submits that the petitioner-workman has worked with the respondent-department upto 31.12.1992 when, his services were terminated by the respondents-department and that too without giving any reasons to the petitioner-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner- workman further submits that the petitioner-workman had continuously worked with the respondent-department without interruptions and had completed 240 days in a year prior to termination of his services, hence, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been violated by the respondent-department, whereas, the labour Court in its order impugned has come to the conclusion that the respondent-department i.e. Public Work Department (Building and Road) (PWD (B&R)), Haryana does not fall within the definition of ‘Industry’.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further argues that once, the petitioner-workman was working as a workman with the respondent-department, and had continuously rendered his service for a period of more than 4 ½ years, therefore, declining the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-department does not fall within the definition of ‘Industry’ is not permissible.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-department on the other hand submits that even it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the respondent-department falls under the definition of an ‘Industry’ but the petitioner-workman was working on a time bound project on which he was assigned to him by the respondent-department and the said project was came to an end on 31.12.1992 after which the services of the petitioner-workman were no longer needed and he was relieved from services by the respondent- department, hence, the same cannot be treated as violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act and hence, non grant of any benefit to the petitioner-workman by the labour Court is perfectly valid and legal and as the services of the petitioner were never retrenched by the respondent-department, the impugned award dated 19.04.1996 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondent- department has only defended the order of termination of the services of the petitioner-workman on the ground that the project against which the petitioner was working with the respondent-department came to an end on 31.12.1992. It may be further noticed that the project on which the workman was assigned to work by the petitioner-workman came to an end on 31.12.1992 but in any case, where an employee has worked for 240 days in a year prior to the termination of his/her services, the provision of Section

25-F of the 1947 Act, will be applicable in his/her case.

7. The condition under which, the termination of services of the petitioner-workman will not amount to retrenchment has been stipulated in the 1947 Act itself. The situation under which the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent-department, is not covered under the conditions s