Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

K.C. Puri, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing award dated 1.6.1999, Annexure P-3, passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh whereby the reference was allowed and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. However, the workman was allowed back wages to the extent of 50% only.

The brief facts as are evident from the impugned award are that the respondent No. 2-workman was employed as a Peon with effect from 1.6.1993 on daily wages and further on ad hoc basis with effect from 19.3.1994 and continued in the employment till 14.3.1995 with notional break of one day in the month of June, 1994 and again with notional break of one day in September, 1994 and December, 1994. According to the workman, respondent No. 2 he remained in the employment of the petitioner upto 14.3.1995 and had put in a continuous service of more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, when his services were illegally terminated with effect from 15.3.1995, without serving any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation.

The workman further alleged that persons junior to him were retained in service and the termination of his service being against the mandatory provisions of industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was liable to be set aside.

The claim of workman was contested by the petitioner-bank by filing written reply. It was admitted that the workman worked with the petitioner-Bank as a Peon firstly on daily wage basis and thereafter on ad hoc basis. It was further alleged that the appointment of workman was for a specific period on contractual basis and after the expiry of the contractual period, the services of the workman automatically delinked and as such neither any notice was required to be paid to him and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Acr.

It was denied that any junior to the workman was retained in service were appointed on regular basis by the duly constituted Selection Committee.

From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

Whether the services of workman were terminated illegally by respondent. If so, to what effect and to what relief, the workman is entitled to? OPW

Relief.

On issue No. 1 the learned Labour Court returned a finding that the termination of services of the workman was in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and as such the same was not sustainable under law. On the basis of said findings on issue No. 1, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned award dated 1.6.1999.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Bank has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition impugning the said award on the grounds that the learned Labour Court without appreciating the facts on record accepted the contentions of respondent No. 2 and held mat the termination of respondent No. 2 was in violation of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the petitioner-Bank was indulging in mal-practices, that the action of the Labour Court in accepting the demand notice of respondent No. 2 was against the settled law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court, that the impugned award is illegal, unjust, unwarranted and non-est in the eyes of law that the learned Labour Court has not appreciated the facts on record that respondent No. 2 was appointed on, contract basis, and that, for a fixed period and his services have been terminated as per terms and conditions of his appointment letter; that the names of those persons alleged to be juniors to the petitioner, which were mentioned by the workman-respondent No. 2 in the demand notice are totally wrong and misleading, that the action of the Labour Court in holding that it amounts to retrenchment is against Section 2(oo)(bb); that the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on expiry of the contract period and on joining of regularly selected candidate and, therefore, the question of compliance of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of pleadings in the petition. He submitted that the workman was not appointed as per rules and regulations and as such his appointment cannot be considered to be under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the appointment de hors Rules and Regulations is liable to be terminated and does not amount to retrenchment. Otherwise, it is submitted that the appointment was for a fix period and on expiry of that period, the workman has got no right to remain in service and that does not amount to retrenchment u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case.

The controversy in dispute has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13469 of 2005, titled State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh, decided on 2.4.2008. All the arguments advanced by the (sic) petitioner have been dealt with in that judgment. The latest law, in this (sic) been discussed in that judgment.

The award of learned labour court stands modified, fbe order of re-instatement of workman along with back wages stand set aside. However, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for each completed year of service.

The present petition, therefore, stands disposed of in terms of judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 13469 of 2005, mentioned above.