The government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act and the Labour Court on 23.9.2004 made the award, which was challenged before the High Court.
The stand of the petitioner management is that respondent number1 workman was engaged as Buldozer Operator on 89 days basis and in that stop gap arrangement he had worked from 1.11.1990 till 15.7.1996 but intermittently.
The award was made by the Presiding Officer, Patiala.
Prayer in the writ petition was to quash the award dated 23.9.2004 under which the respondent number1 was directed to be reinstated with companytinuity of service with 50 back wages within stipulated time.
Thereafter, his services were number extended.
The matter was before the Labour Court on the basis of a companyplaint made by respondent number1.
Since his appointment was on 89 days basis, the same was extended from time to time till 5.7.1996.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent number1 workman was appointed as Buldozer Operator with the petitioner management on 1.11.1990.
The workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that his services were terminated by the management on 15.7.1996 without any numberice, charge sheet, enquiry or companypensation and that the juniors to him are still in service of the management and new persons were also appointed by the management after terminating his services.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
