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