AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The brief facts giving rise to this review petition are that the respondent no. 1 was engaged as LDC/Typist vide the order dated 27.12.1993 on temporary or adhoc basis for 3 months or duly selected candidates are made available whichever is earlier. The term of contract was extended by issuing the orders dated 14.03.1994, 31.12.1994 and 04.04.1995 respectively and finally upto 30.09.1995 vide the order dated 23.06.1995. The order
23.06.1995 also contains the specific fact that the term of contract shall remain same as was mentioned in previous orders. On account of expiry of the terms of contract the services of respondent no. 1 automatically came to an end hence, he was discontinued from service.
However, on raising dispute by the respondent no. 1, the matter was referred to Labour Court No. 2 for adjudication. Labour Court passed ward dated 18.05.1999 by declaring the termination illegal with the further direction to reinstate the workman in continuation of his past service along with all consequential benefits and full back wages with Rs. 300/-as cost. Since the termination of the workman fall under Section 2(oo)(bb) and, therefore,
the compliance of Section 25-F was not at all required. Otherwise also the workman had not been selected on regular basis but his services were contractual for a short period and after his termination of contract, no other employee was engaged in his place since the post was not sanctioned. The
petitioner, therefore, challenged the award dated 18.05.1999 by filling the writ petition wherein the interim order was granted by admitting the writ petition at the stage of admission.
The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 03.08.2017 dismissed the writ petition by modifying the award to the extent that the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement and in continuation to his past services but with only 25% back wages with no order to cost. The division bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of learned Single Judge. However, this Court while upholding the award and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
observed that “endeavor is made that the institution has been closed and because of the financial crisis, the order passed by the learnedcourt is not
executable for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. In our considered opinion, if the institution is closed it will be open for the appellant to follow the procedure and put the services of the respondent to an end after making him payment pursuant to the award and all other legal
dues.” Hence this review petition.
Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that this Court while deciding the appeal has not given any reason why the earlier judgement of this Court in Satish Sharma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court & Ors.-(2015) WLC
(Raj.) UC 490 was distinguishable and why the case of the respondent would not be covered within exception covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgement therefore according to him suffers from error apparent on the face of record.
Learned counsel in the course of arguments has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Salim Bhai
Umar Bhai Mansura-AIR 2013 SC 2762 and argued that the learned Single Judge did not correctly appreciate the ratio of that judgement. Learned counsel also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. vs. Gitam Singh-(2013)
5 SCC 136 and argued that the respondent was working on contract basis against a non-sanctioned post and his termination was made due to non-
renewal of the contract.
We are afraid the arguments that the learned counsel seeks to make touch upon the merits of the case. The coordinate bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal has concurred with the view of the learned Single Judge. None of the arguments which the learned counsel is now making in this
review petition be said to bring the matter within the purview of “error apparent on the face of record” so as to justify its review. It is settled law
that rehearing of a matter in the garb of review cannot be permitted.
At this stage, learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that last para of the judgement of the division bench is not properly worded as in that while dismissing the appeal, it was observed that appellant-institution is required to follow the procedure and put the services of the respondent to an end after making payment pursuant to award and other legal dues and therefore his submission is that even though the learned Single Judge in his judgement has modified the direction for payment of full back wages by 25% wages, but the aforesaid observation by division bench can be
understood to mean again grant of full back wages. It is clarified that “award” referred to in the last para of the judgement should be read as
“award as modified by the learned Single Judge” and upheld by the division bench. With that observation and clarification, the review petition is
dismissed.