Udesh Kumar vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated March 2, 2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.

The petitioner has averred that he was appointed on March 2, 1993 as an Assistant Lineman and was posted at Sub-Urban Division, Haryana State Electricity Board, Jagadhri/Yamuna Nagar. It has been averred that he was illegally terminated on September 23,1997 without serving any notice of retrenchment or without giving him one month''s notice.

It has been further averred that some similarly placed Assistant Linemen, who were at that time unsuccessful qua the petitioner, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13660 of 1997 on November 29, 1995, wherein the Hon''ble High Court vide order dated November 29, 1995 quashed the entire selection and directed the respondents to complete the entire process of selection within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but the respondent-management did not do so within the stipulated period. The petitioner is now claiming that he has completed more than 240 days and has been illegally retrenched from service.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the petition and the annexures attached therewith.

It is admitted case of the petitioner that if the period beyond three months, which was granted by this Court for the selection process to be completed is counted, only then the petitioner completes 240 days, but if the period beyond three months is not counted, then he will not complete 240 days.

The petitioner worked with the respondent-management as per the interim direction given by this Court and this was the reason that the respondent- management did not terminate his service as the order of the Court was in his favour. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, has rightly relied on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13660 of 1997, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

"Continuance in service under the interim direction of the Court will not confer any benefit upon the workmen as their selection and appointment has been held to be illegal and the same has become final."

Similar is the view has been expressed by a Single Bench of this Court in Panipat Thermal Power Project Station v. The State of Haryana and others 1995(4) R.S.J. 75:1995(4) SCT268 (PAH) wherein it is held that "....At any rate, the period during which the workman was working under the orders of this Court passed in C.W.P. 3200 of 1990 cannot be taken into account for counting the stipulated period of 240 days. If the period is excluded the workman had not completed even 240 days of service."

In the instant case, the petitioner was working under the orders of the Court and a clear direction given by the Court was that the entire process of selection afresh was to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which the respondent-management could not do so, in that eventuality, the period of service rendered by him beyond three months, cannot be taken into consideration for counting the period of 240 days. Thus, we find no infirmity in the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.

In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service.

For the reasons recorded above, we don''t find any merit in this petition. The petition is, thus, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.