Termination of employment without notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal if the employee has completed more than 240 days of service.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Award dated 11.08.2014, passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof the Reference made by the appropriate Government was answered by the learned Labour Court, by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Sunil Kumar s/o Sh. Purshottam Dass, Village Chunhal, P.O. Jhaniari Devi, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. by i) The District Ayurvedic Officer, District Ayurvedic Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P. ii) The Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Ayurvedic Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P. w.e.f. 01-12-2010 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits & compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from above employer?”

3. The case put up by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that the petitioner was engaged by District Ayurvedic Officer as a Masseur at Pachkarma Department of Ayurvedic Hospital, Hamirpur, under the Asptal Kalyan Samiti on 06.09.2008. He continued to serve as such till 30.04.2010 and was paid monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 2000/-. With effect from 01.05.2010, the petitioner rendered his services as such under Rogi Kalyan Samiti, which took over the Asptal Kalyan Samiti along-with the staff of the said Samiti. The petitioner continued to serve as such till 30.11.2010, when his services were terminated by the District Ayurvedic Officer in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to the petitioner, as he had completed more than 240 days in preceding 12 months as from the date of his termination, the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act was fatal and his termination be held to be bad and he be ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

4. The claim was resisted by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had earlier joined Asptal Kalyan Samiti as a Masseur on the terms and conditions as were agreed between him and Asptal Kalyan Samiti and thereafter, he served under the Rogi Kalyan Samiti independently. As per the respondents, Asptal Kalyan Samiti and Rogi Kalyan Samiti were two different independent registered Socities which had got nothing to do with the Department of Ayurveda per se and, therefore, as the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis, after the end of his contract, there was no illegality in the dispensation of his services.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Labour Court on 30.04.2013:-

“1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 01-12-2010 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action? OPP. 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR

4. Whether the claim petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR.

6. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR.

7. Relief.”

6. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the same were answered as under:-

“Issue No.1 : No Issue No.2 : No Issue No.3 : No Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No Issue No.6 : No Relief : Reference answered accordingly.”

7. The Reference was answered by the learned Labour Court by dismissing the claim petition and by holding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that his services were illegally terminated by the respondents.

8. Feeling aggrieved, t