Raj Pal Singh v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Gurdaspur And Others

CM-3309-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1549-2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3309-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1549-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 07, 2018 Raj Pal Singh .....Appellant

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.

........

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) CM-3309-LPA-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1549-2017 This Letters Patent Appeal assails the order dated 27.07.2017 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and has upheld the Award dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Labour Court-cumIndustrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur. [2] Briefly stated, the appellant raised an industrial dispute claiming that he was appointed as Beldar on 08.06.2006 and by issuing a transfer order on 04/14.09.2006, he was un-ceremonially relieved from the job in October 2006.

[3] Learned Labour Court has answered the Reference against the MEENU 2018.08.17 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM-3309-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1549-2017 (O&M) -2appellant after observing that he was appointed for two months on the recommendations of a minister.

[4] It was a case of back door entry as neither the post was advertised nor other eligible candidates were considered. Still further, the workman remained silent for five years before raising the industrial dispute. The Award of the Labour Court has been upheld by learned Single Judge, who found that there is no violation of Section 25 F or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the 1947 Act'). It is also a fact that the appellant worked for two months only, i.e. from 01.08.2006 to 30.09.2006 and thereafter he was relieved. The industrial dispute was raised by him somewhere in the year 2011. Neither he had completed 240 days in employment nor pleaded or made out a case of violation of any other provision of the 1947 Act.

[5] No interference is, thus, called for in the order under appeal. [6] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 07, 2018 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2018.08.17 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh