Government Tool Room and Training Centre vs Shri Kariyappa since dead by his LRs. (Smt. Ningamma and Smt. Nagamma)

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This petition is by the Management of Government Tool Room and Training Center assailing the award dated 13-12-2008 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in IID No. 209/1999 at Annexure-E and also (sic) for quashing the said award.

One Kariyappa was initially appointed as casual part-time Gardener on hourly basis during November 1993. According to the Management itself, on 1-6-1994 he was once again appointed on temporary/daily wage basis for a period of six months without appointment order, but later they issued an appointment order and he continued so. Thereafter once again on 1-4-1997, he was appointed on contract basis for a period of six months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,200/- p.m. which was subsequently increased to Rs. 2,000/-.; According to the Management, from 1-9-1998 no extension was given to the workman and he also suffered injuries due to an accident from 1-10-1998 to 31-12-1998. Once again he was appointed on contract basis from 1-9-1999 to 30-6-1999. It is stated by the Management that there is no such appointment order issued subsequent thereto.

Stating that there is refusal of employment and non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman raised a dispute u/s 10(4-A) of the Act before the Labour Court, Mysore. It is stated the workman was initially paid Rs. 750/- p.m. and thereafter, he was paid salary of Rs. 2, 000/-p.m. The Labour .Court, after enquiry, noticed that the said Kariyappa died during the pendency of the matter and his legal representatives were brought on record. It has also noticed that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while terminating the services of the workman in spite of he being a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Act and held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year. Holding that the workman cannot be reinstated as he died during the pendency of the matter, the Labour Court ordered for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The same has been assailed by the Management before this Court in this writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management that the petitioner is a Government Institution and there was neither vacancy nor the deceased respondent was appointed on regular basis as against notified vacancy. Only on temporary and daily wage basis he was appointed from 2-11-1993 onwards at break up periods of every six months and his services were so concluded as on 30-6-1999. Since there was no appointment order issued to the workman from 1-7-1999, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any right or benefit, as a matter of contract in the case of a Government Institution where regular procedure has to be followed by issuing notification against the existing vacancies. Since the procedure not followed as contemplates nor the respondent was appointed against the notified vacancies, the question of absorbing or regularising his services do not arise and also submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court to pay compensation is nonest In this regard, he relied upon a decision reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others,

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the pleadings in the writ petition itself make it clear that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year commencing from 1993 up to June 1999 and also he was paid salary. When once he has completed 240 days of service in a year, he comes under the definition of ''workman'' u/s 2(s) of the Act. Necessarily non-issuance of appointment order as contended by the Management is nothing but termination of employment much less it is termination without issuance of notice. Taking into consideration the fact that the workman has rendered 4 to 5 years of service and the workman died during the pendency of the matter and his legal representatives were brought on record, the Labour Court has rightly ordered to pay compensation, which does not call for interference. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the workman relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 569/2008 disposed of on 21-8-2008. Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in Sita Ram and Others Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, to contend that the relief of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the circumstances would serve the ends of justice. He also relied upon a decision of a Constitution Bench reported in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others, to contend that the definition in Section 2(oo) of the act. - the expression ''retrenchment'' does not mean only termination by the employer of the service of surplus labour for any reason whatsoever � The expression ''retrenchment'' is not to be understood in its narrow, natural and contextual meaning, but is to be understood in its wider literal meaning to mean the termination of service of workmen for any reason whatsoever.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it is noticed that the workman had worked for more than 4 to 5 years by the time there was implied refusal of employment. Referring to Section 2(oo) of the Act, the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited cited supra has noted that termination of the workman for any reason in the context would attract non-continuation of services of the workman either by refusal or not extending the appointment order even though he had completed 240 days of service in a year. It is not in dispute that the workman had worked for more than 240 days and he also worked so for 4 to 5 years, might be initially on part-time and hourly basis, but subsequently on daily wage basis and for consolidated salary. Whatever the nomenclature be, the work discharged by the workman is for more than 240 days in a year and also he falls within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, since he has completed 240 days of service. When admittedly it is a Government Institution, even by following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi''s case, the workman would not be entitled for regularisation. More over, during the pendency of the matter, the workman died and there is no question of either regularisation or absorption into services. What remains is that for having refused the employment without notice and without paying compensation in lieu of implied termination, necessarily the Labour Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement, taking into consideration the fact that the workman had worked for more than 4 to 5 years.

The Labour Court has also taken note of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court reported in Suraj Pal Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer and Another, wherein the Apex court referred to Sections 25-F and 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held that continuous service or ''uninterrupted service'' - means and refers to the days during which the workman was employed and continued -Any artificial breaks given malafidely should not be recognised - Benefit of Section 25-B(1), to be given to workman'' and as such he prayed that the I party was given sufficient compensation as he was illegally terminated.

Taking into consideration the case of the Management that once in six months appointment letter was issued to the workman for the break up period and there was continuous appointment as he had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year held that the artificial break up given by issuing appointment letters for every six months will not take away the benefit ensured to the workman for having rendered his service continuously for more than 240 days in a year and the artificial break up has to be ignored.

In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court in directing the petitioner-Institution to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of the workman as the workman died during the pendency of the matter for which, the legal representatives of the deceased workman are entitled to. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

The legal representatives of the deceased respondent workman are permitted to withdraw the amount said to have been deposited by the petitioner.