The Bathinda District Co-operation Milk Producers' Union vs The Presiding Officer and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Challenge in the present petition filed by the management is to the award dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-6), passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, ''the Tribunal''), whereby it has directed for reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service with 20% back-wages. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner is a co-operative society, which is member of the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers'' Union Limited. The respondent-workman was employed as Helper-cum-Cleaner for the first time on 1.10.1985 on contractual basis for a fixed period upto 28.2.1986. Thereafter, on application the contract was renewed for short periods intermittently as per the need. Finally, in terms of the conditions in contract, the respondent-workman worked upto 6.12.1988 and was not engaged thereafter. He was paid wages for the period he worked. A demand notice was issued. The matter was referred to the Tribunal. Vide impugned award, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman back in service with 20% back-wages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled proposition of law. The workman was employed for short durations as per the need and was relieved on expiry of the period. He had in fact, not completed 240 days in a calendar year. In the absence thereof, he could not be said to be allegedly terminated. Even in the absence of any evidence led by the management, the workman had failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in the calendar year preceding his alleged termination. The workman even did not seek production of record from the management. Demand notice was raised 8 years after the alleged termination and presently 24 years have passed after the workman last worked with the management. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed upon M/s Haryana State F. C. C. W. Store Ltd. and another v. Ram Niwas and another, 2002 (5) SLR 277 and C.W.P. No. 11741 of 2002 -The Bathinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another, decided on 9.11.2009.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that the workman had been engaged by the petitioner for packing of milk, butter and ghee. The work never came to an end. It is still continuing. As far as terms and conditions of appointment are concerned, the management being in a dominating position could make the workman sign on dotted lines. He had no bargaining power. He had proved on record that he was engaged on 1.10.1985. Two other persons, who were junior to the workman, were retained. Considering the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the award of the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book and the relevant record.

The workman in the present case was engaged by the petitioner intermittently for the following periods:

After the petitioner last worked on 6.12.1988, he issued demand notice dated 26.8.1996. From the material on record produced by the workman, it is not established that he had in fact, worked for 240 days in the year preceding his last working day. In fact, as is evident from the aforesaid dates, after the petitioner worked from 1.10.1985 to 31.5.1986 with short periods, he was engaged on 19.2.1987 and worked till 30.4.1987. Thereafter, he was engaged on 7.9.1988 and worked till 6.12.1988, as per the terms of his appointment letter.

The aforesaid facts clearly establish that in fact the workman had not worked for 240 days in the calendar year prior to the last day of his working. When there was a gap of five months in engagement of the petitioner afresh on 7.9.1988, he cannot claim that junior to him was working as it was a fresh date of appointment. As per contract of service produced before the Tribunal, it was for the period from 7.9.1988 to 6.12.1983. Termination as a result of expiry of period of contract was not held to be retrenchment in The Bathinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.''s case (supra). For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the award of the Tribunal does not stand judicial scrutiny, hence, the same is set aside. However, considering the fact that the workman is litigating for the last about 16 years, the management is directed to pay him Rs. 25,000 as compensation.

The petition stands disposed of.