A plea was raised in the said proceedings on behalf of the appellant herein that the respondent was appointed on a supervisory post and, thus, was number a workman within the meaning of Section 2 S of the Act.
A writ petition filed before the High Court by the appellant herein against the said award was dismissed.
It, however, does number appear from the impugned award that the respondent had called for the records from the office of the appellant.
It further refused to go into the question as regards the payment of entire back wages stating that the appellant herein had neither pleaded number produced any evidence to show that the respondent was gainfully employed after termination of his service.
The respondent herein was appointed on 1.4.1994.
It is number in dispute that the Appellant herein is a statutory body and being a local authority, governed by the Punjab Municipal Act.
The terms and companyditions of service, including recruitment of its employees, are governed by statutory rules.
If number, to what exact amount of companypensation is he entitled?
Before the Labour Court, the appellant raised a plea that the respondent was appointed on the post of Supervisor, on the recommendation of one Shri R.S. Puri, M.L.A., Sujanpur and then a Minister in the Government of Punjab.
He companytinued to work up to 31.7.1996.
The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the workman having companypleted 240 days of work in a calendar year, it was the bounden duty of the Appellant to produce the entire relevant records but the same had number been done.
4988 of 2002 affirming the award dated 22.11.2001 of the Labour Court, Gurdaspur is before us.
It is number in dispute that the attendance records of March 1994 and from April 1994 to February 1996 were produced but the attendance registers from March 1996 onwards were number produced.
Questioning the validity and legality thereof, an industrial dispute was raised which culminated in a reference made by the appropriate governments under Industrial Disputes Act the Act in exercise of its power under Section 10 1 c thereof the following dispute to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur Whether termination of services of Shri Surinder Kumar, workman is justified and in order?
It was held by the Labour Court that the respondent companypleted 240 days of work within a period of twelve months preceding his termination.
His services were terminated on 16.7.1997 by issuing a numberice of termination.
The appellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 29.4.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.
It is number in dispute that the respondent was appointed on daily wages.
B. SINHA, J. J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP C No.
17977 OF 2004 Leave granted.
