International Woollen Mills vs The Presiding and Officer, Labour Court and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order of Labour Court, Ludhiana in Reference No. 571 and 638 of 1980 dated March 12, 1982.

Respondents No. 2 and 3 were engaged by the petitioner in its establishment in the year 1979. According to the petitioner, respondents were engaged for a period of three months only for a specified period and for a specified work and respondents No. 2 and 3 voluntarily absented themselves w.e.f. January 11, 1980 and they received the full and final payment of their wages on January 22, 1980 and thereafter the respondents got employment with M/s Hind Woollen and Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana and respondents got No. 2 and 3 never worked with the petitioner for a period of 240 days but respon-; dents No. 2 and 3 raised an Industrial dispute that their services have been terminated unjustly and illegally. A reference was made and the Labour Court in the impugned award held that the terminisation was illegal but it came to the further conclusion that in the circumstances of the cases reinstatement was not justified and, therefore awarded a sum of Rs. 1000 as compensation to each of the respondents No. 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the award the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the same.

According to the petitioner, respondents No. 2 and 3 worked with the petitioner only for a period of three months. Annexure P.2 is the letter appointing the respondents on October 7, 1979 for a specific period i.e up to January 31, 1980. Thus according to annexure P.2 the appointment is for a period less than four months and it was also for a specified period. There is nothing on record to show that respondents No. 2 and 3 have been employed by the petitioner earlier or they continued to be in service of the petitioner after the expiry of period mentioned in Annexure P. 2 i.e. after January 31, 1980. From the award it is clear according to the statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 that they worked with the petitioner only for a period of five months. Thus from the evidence on record the workmen worked with the petitioner only for a period of five months. They have not completed 240 days to invoke the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that both the workmen were gainfully employed. It is also the case of the petitioner that boh the respondents were employed with M/s Hind Woollen and Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana after leaving the service of the petitioner. In these circumstance it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the workmen was unjustified. The evidence on record shows that it was the workmen who left the service of the petitioner as they have been employed gainfully. In the circumstances, I set aside the award of Labour Court, Ludhiana dated March 12, 1982 including the award of compensation to the workmen.

The writ petition isaccordingly allowed.

There will be no order as to costs.