CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

State of Haryana vs Chet Ram

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 March 2001 · Citation: (2001) 03 P&H CK 0033

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhalkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 16636 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 383 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Though there is a written request by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 for adjournment, it is stated by her that she withdraws her request. Both the counsel are ready to argue tile case. They state that record is not necessary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The employer being dissatisfied with the award of the Labour Court dated 3.12.1999 (copy annexure P/6) has filed this writ petition, challenging the same. By this award, respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages to the tune of 10 percent.

3.

The challenge to the award is on two counts:

(i) that the respondent No. 1 has not completed 240 days of service and the finding on this point by the Labour Court is not correct; and

(ii) that the respondent was employed for a specific work and for specific period.

4.

Regarding the first point, the Labour Court had held that from the written statement filed before it, the respondent could be said to have competed 240 days. The petitioner also along with writ petition has filed 3 statement at annexure P/1. It mentions the working days from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1994. Admittedly the respondent has also worked for the month of March and June 1995 before he was terminated. The total working days from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1994 as per annexure P/1 would come to 183. In addition, as it is not in dispute that the respondent also worked in the months of March and June, 1995. 61 days can be said to have been the working days in the year 1995 upto 30.6.1995. The total working days upto 30.6.95 would come to 244. This being the position, the respondent has already completed 240 days of service and it cannot be said that the finding of the Labour Court on this point can be interfered with.

5.

So far as next point is concerned, the Labour Court has held that there was no cogent evidence in contention that the respondent was appointed for a specific work for specific period. It is not shown as to how this finding is not correct.

6.

No other point has been argued.

7.

As a result, this writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

8.

Petition dismissed.