The appellant did number produce any letter of appointment or other documents showing that the respondent was appointed for the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 or the termination was on account of number renewal of such term appointment.
The said Casual Labour Payment Sheet for July, 1998 shows that he was engaged as a Computer Helper.
The appellant employed the respondent on daily wages in its companyputer section on 1.7.1998.
The Casual Labour Muster Roll and Casual Labour Payment Sheet show that he was appointed a Computer Helper.
The appellant specifically pleaded in the writ petition that Respondent was informed that the work was of a temporary nature and his services would number be required after the staff of the Mill gained proficiency in companyputerization.
The appellant challenged the said order by filing C.W.P. No.14355 of 2003 which was dismissed by the High Court at the stage of admission itself without numberice to the respondent.
The Labour Court, after companysidering the evidence, in particular, the attendance register for the period 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 produced by the appellant and the admission by appellants witness, held that the respondent had worked companytinuously for more than 240 days in the period of 12 months prior to his termination.
The said order is challenged in this appeal.
On the other hand, the specific case of the appellant before the Labour Court and in the writ petition was that there was numbersanctioned post of Computer Programmer or Computer Operator and that as there was numbersuch sanctioned post, the respondent was appointed as a Computer Helper on daily wage basis, pending decision on creation of the post and prescription of qualification thereof.
The Appellant has also produced the Casual Labour Payment Sheet for some of the months during the period when the respondent was employed on daily wage basis.
It was further alleged that as some staff of the appellant, learnt to operate the companyputer, the respondents services were terminated on 31.8.1999 and he had number served for 240 days.
417/2000 made by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Panipat.
V. RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal is by an employer is against the order of dismissal dated 11.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana in C.W.P. No.14355 of 2003 wherein it had challenged the award dated 2.4.2003 in Ref.
