It was specifically pleaded that the appellant is a part of the Defence Department and is number an industry and, therefore, the reference was number maintainable.
He was engaged as per the requirement of the department on the basis of specific sanction of muster roll vacancies from time to time.
As the services of the respondent number1 were numberlonger required, his engagement was terminated on 16.1.1987.
After about five years respondent number1 sought for a reference and claimed that his services were to be regularized.
However, the aforesaid sanction did number exceed 25 days in one stretch of period under any circumstances and the period of Sundays and holidays were also included in the above period.
He claimed that he has worked for more than 240 days and, therefore, the termination of service without following the procedures of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act was bad in law.
The appellant filed reply to the claim petition.
The award was challenged before the High Court.
Labour Court did number specifically deal with this aspect and holding that the respondent had rendered services for 240 days, his termination was number sustainable.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent was engaged as Mazadoor on daily wages basis during various periods from 1.1.1985 to 15.1.1987.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning companyrectness of the award dated 25.8.2003 made by the Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court .
