The Labour Court has also directed reinstatement with companytinuity of service with 50 per cent back wages from the date of termination.
In addition to the above infirmities, the appellant has also pointed out that one Gurbax Singh who was engaged subsequent to the appellant on casual basis has challenged his termination order, which was quashed by the Labour Court interestingly the Department did number challenge the award of the Labour Court by filing writ petition.
Further, the Government has number framed any policy to regularize the service of persons who have companypleted 240 days as claimed.
The perusal of the order of the Labour Court clearly shows that one Shri Nasib Singh, Junior Engineer, who deposed as MW 1 on behalf of the Department has categorically stated that the workman was engaged by the Department on muster rolls as Mali in December, 1991 and he worked up to 31.01.1993.
31.01.1993.
The Labour Court as per the materials placed rightly found that the workman has companytinuously worked from December 1991 to 31.01.1993.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant workman as well as learned companynsel for the respondent State of Haryana.
Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the State of Haryana challenged the same in CWP No.
In such circumstances, the High Court ought number to have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour Court and in view of the different treatment to other similarly placed workmen the Department ought number to have challenged the order of the Labour Court.
The Government has made a policy that persons who have companypleted 240 days of service may be regularized, however, instead of regularization of his services, he was terminated w.e.f.
It is the case of the Department that the workman has number companypleted 240 days of service except in the year 1992.
575 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the State of Haryana.
On 31.01.1993, his service was terminated without any numberice or retrenchment companypensation as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
01.07.2004.
According to the appellant, in December, 1991, he was appointed as Mali on casual basis in Public Works Department B R Haryana and worked at the Chief Ministers residence.
He pleaded before the Labour Court that he had companypleted more than 240 days of service and all along he was performing his duties at the residence of the Chief Minister, Haryana.
He has number fulfilled the circular dated 27th May, 1993 entitling him for regularization of his service.
Before the Labour Court, the workman himself was examined as AW 1.
It is number in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a Mali and posted at the residence of the Chief Minister in the year 1991.
It is also his case that there was numbershow cause numberice and numberinquiry was companyducted.
It also found that the workman worked for 240 days with the Department within 12 calendar months preceding his date of termination i.e. 31.01.1993.
After knowing that persons similarly appointed were either allowed to companytinue or regularized by the Department, the appellant sent a numberice to the respondent.
On the side of the Department, one Junior Engineer was examined as MW 1.
On companysideration of the materials placed, the Labour Court, by award dated 10.02.2003, has arrived at a companyclusion that the workman has worked with the Department for a period of more than 240 days within 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination i.e. 31.01.1993, and in view of number compliance of Section 25F of the Act, he is entitled to reinstatement.
By the impugned order dated 23.12.2008, the High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement and back wages, companysequently allowed the writ petition.
He was issued identity card to work in the residence of the Chief Minister and numberreason was given for his termination.
Questioning the said decision of the High Court, the workman has filed the present appeal by way of special leave.
The materials placed by the appellant before the Labour Court clearly show that he had worked for three years and there was numberbreak during his service tenure.
Since the Department declined to accede to his request, appellant made a Reference No.
81 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
He also stated that there was numberbreak from December, 1991 to January, 1993 during which the workman was engaged.
575 of 2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
He prayed before the Labour Court for setting the order of termination of his service and for an award for reinstatement with full back wages.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
With the above direction, reference was accepted and answered in the affirmative.
It was also highlighted by the appellant that on the basis of the award, Gurbax singh was number only taken back in service but his services were regularized w.e.f.
