HC seeks assistance from advocate generals to draft guidelines

Taking stock of the averment,the division bench ruled,“Since the issue has larger ramifications,we consider it just and appropriate to issue notices to Punjab,Haryana and Chandigarh through their respective Departments of Labour,asking them to assist the court in laying down parameters,if any”.

Accordingly a copy of the paper book of the instant letters patent appeal along with a copy of this order be furnished to the respective Advocate Generals of Punjab and Haryana and the senior standing counsel of Chandigarh,so as to assist this court,the Bench ruled.

The petitioner had moved against Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court,Panipat.

On February 14,2002,Anil Kumar had raised a demand notice that he had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year but the management had terminated his services on August 1,1996,without assigning any reason or reasonable cause.

Further it was submitted that persons junior to him were still continuing the job. This is a contravention of Section 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act.

The Labour Court on June 8,2004,after going through the relevant record came to the conclusion that Anil Kumar has worked more than 240 days in calendar year and admittedly no notice for compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Act have been given to the workman.

Consequently,Anil Kumar was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice. Challenging the orders of the Labour Court,HUDA moved the High Court. The case was decided by a single Judge on January 20. Anil Kumar moved the High Court challenging the order passed by the single Judge since. The ground taken by Anil Kumar was that his counsel could not appear in the case and it was decided ex-parte against Anil.