Garrison Engineer (Utility), Bhatinda Vs. Shri Narinder Singh

labour and industrial - termination - section 25f of industrial disputes act, 1947 - respondent was employed on daily wage basis during various periods in span of two years - his period of engagement never stretched for more that 25 days in one stretch under any circumstances - after span of two years his engagement was terminated - after five years respondent sought regularization of his services - further claimed that he had worked for more that 240 days thus termination of service was without following the procedures of act - appellant contended that act has no applicability as it cannot be treated as industry - labour court held that termination was not sustainable as respondent has rendered services for 240 days - on appeal high court upheld the order of labour court on ground that requirement of section 25f had not been complied with - hence, present appeal - held, perusal of order of labour court and high court revealed that factual position had not been analysed in detail and abrupt conclusions had been arrived at - order of high court set aside and matter remitted back to labour court to decide the objections raised by appellant. - termination; [dr. arijit pasayat & lokeshwar singh panta, jj] daily wager reference employer questioning the tenability of reference on the ground that it was a defence department labour court without going into the question of tenability of reference passed order holding termination as violative of section 250-f of the i.d. act writ petition dismissed held, order is improper. order of labour court and high court were set aside and the matter remanded to labour court. - 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......petition filed by the appellant questioning correctness 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'). 2. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:3. respondent was engaged as mazadoor on daily wages basis during various periods from 1.1.1985 to 15.1.1987. he was engaged as per the requirement of the department on the basis of specific sanction of muster roll vacancies from time to time. however, the aforesaid sanction did not 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. as the services of the respondent no. 1 were no longer required, his engagement was terminated on 16.1.1987. after about five years respondent no. 1 sought for a reference and claimed that his services were to be regularized. 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. it was specifically pleaded that the appellant is a part of the defence department and is not an industry and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable. labour court did not specifically deal with this aspect and holding that the respondent had rendered services for 240 days, his termination was not sustainable. the award was challenged before the high court. apart from the other controversies a specific plea was raised that the appellant is not an industry and, therefore, the act has no application. 4. the high court by the impugned order held that the requirements of section 25f of the act had not been complied with and, therefore, the order of the labour court was not to be interfered with. 5. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic plea that the act has no application.....