Municipal Council Raman vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Another

Hon''ble Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner impugns the award dated 18.5.2011.

A reference with the following question was claimed by the respondent-workman:-

Whether termination of services or workman, Sh. Inderjit is justified and in order? If not so, to what relief is he entitled?

He alleged that he has been working with the petitioner - Municipal Council Raman, District Bathinda as a tractor driver since 1.11.99 and his services were terminated on 31.12.2001 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act in particular Section 25 F.In response to the claim set up by the respondent-workman, the petitioner averred that the workman was appointed for a specific period on daily wages as per the prevalent DC rates and since the work was no longer in existence his service were no longer required. Accordingly, the petitioner took shelter of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The respondent-workman was able to establish before the Tribunal that he had completed more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of his alleged termination. He also succeeded in establishing that provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with Consequently, on appreciation of the material before it, learned Tribunal concluded that the respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement but without back-wages.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, instant writ petition has been filed wherein learned counsel for the petitioner has more or less reiterated the stand of the Municipal Council taken before the Industrial Tribunal that since the respondent-workman was employed for a specific period his services were no longer required upon the extinguishment of the said period.

I have considered the matter In the light of what has been submitted before this Court and I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contentions which have been raised before this Court for the simple reason that the respondent-workman brought his grievance squarely within the ambit of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act by establishing that he had completed 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of his termination and that further the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court In case titled as Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, has held that once the workman succeeds in establishing the essential ingredients of having completed 240 days preceding the date of his termination as also non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act then reinstatement has to ordinarily flow as a logical consequence. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award, moreso, when the petitioner has not been able to effectively establish his case that the workman came within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.