Dinesh Kumar vs Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) (Deemed University), Kurukshetra & Anr.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Award dated 04.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2-Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh in Reference ID No.64/2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been answered against him; and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and back wages, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of termination till reinstatement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.1 as a Peon on contract basis with effect from 21.02.2007, and continued to render service, without interruption, upto 27.05.2013. It is submitted that thereafter an intentional break in service was given to the petitioner, and pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.18/2013 and a subsequent interview, he was issued a fresh appointment letter dated 07.08.2013 for the post of Lab Attendant on contract basis for a period of six months, and joined duty on 08.08.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner's engagement was thereafter extended from time to time, and he continued to render service upto 30.06.2014, completing 326 days of service in the preceding twelve months, apart from an overall tenure of about 7½ years with the respondent-institute. It is submitted that the petitioner's services were discontinued with effect from 30.06.2014 without any notice and without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that although the learned Tribunal itself returned a categorical finding that the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months, it erroneously declined to extend the consequential protection of Section 25-F to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned award has been rightly passed. It is submitted that infact, no post of Lab Attendant existed in the institute. Be that as it may, pursuant to the decision taken by the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 03.01.2014, the institute decided to engage contractual/outsourced staff through a service contractor, consequent whereto M/s Radha Krishan Cooperative L/C Society Ltd., Kurukshetra, was awarded the contract for outsourcing of employees with effect from 01.08.2014, and all persons engaged on contract basis at Deputy Commissioner rates, including the petitioner, were accordingly relieved on 30.06.2014. It is further submitted that the petitioner's engagement was purely contractual in nature and expressly governed by the terms of the appointment letter dated 07.08.2013 (Ex.C-3), condition No.5 whereof expressly permitted the engagement to be dispensed with, with or without notice, at any time before the expiry of the period of the contract or on the specific work against which the petitioner was engaged ceasing to exist, while condition No.7 expressly stipulated that the contractual engagement was not "employment" but a "contract of work". It is submitted that, in these circumstances, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had no application, and the learned Tribunal has rightly answered the reference against the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the judicial record with their able assistance.

A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, recorded a categorical finding that it was not disputed that the petitioner had served the respondent-institute initially from 21.02.2007, with a short intervening break, and thereafter rendered service from 08.08.2013 to 30.06.2014 pursuant to the appointment letter dated 07.08.2013 (Ex.C-3). The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the factum of the petitioner having completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months stood proved.

However, on the more material question as to whether the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stood attracted, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner's engagement was purely contractual in nature, and that the extension granted to him after the initial period of six months continued to be governed by the same terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter Ex.C-3. Reliance in this regard was placed on conditions No.5 and 7 thereof, which read as under:-

The learned Tribunal accordingly held that as per the terms of his appointment, no notice under Section 25--F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required to be served upon the petitioner. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the respondent-management was well within its rights to discharge the petitioner upon cessation of the contract, consequent to the policy decision of the institute to engage the services of a labour contractor, and answered the reference against the petitioner.

It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or patent illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, nor has it been shown that the findings are contrary to the pleadings or the evidence available on record, or that the terms of the appointment letter Ex.C-3, admittedly executed by the petitioner, have been misconstrued in any manner.

Accordingly, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.